On the Complexity of the World Modernization Movement

The course of development of the world modernization movement and the results it has produced both show that the modernization of human society is an extremely complex historical process and state of development. The modernization of different countries in the world possesses both universality and commonality, on the one hand, and particularity and complexity, on the other. “There is no single modernization model that is set in stone, nor is there any universal standard for modernization that applies everywhere.” [1]1 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, from his speech at the opening ceremony of a seminar on the study and implementation of the spirit of the 19th National Congress of the CPC in January 2018. Taken comprehensively, the modernization of human society can be seen as an interactive development process in the economic sphere from agricultural civilization to industrial civilization, in the political sphere from autocratic systems to democratic or law-based systems, in the social sphere from agrarian (rural) civilization to urban civilization, and in the spiritual sphere (including ideas, values, moral life, and individual characteristics) from universal uniformity to diverse forms. Industrialization, marketization, democratization, law-based governance, socialization, rationalization, urbanization, individualization, informatization, and greening have already become the rich connotations of “modernization” or “modernity,” and the abundant content of modern civilization. The universality, commonality, particularity, and complexity of the world modernization movement determine the complexity of the process and results of the modernization of human society, and also determine the extreme complexity of theoretical research on world modernization.

世界现代化运动的发展历程和所形成的结果都表明，人类社会的现代化发展是一种极其复杂的历史进程和发展状态，世界各国的现代化既具有普遍性和共同性，又具有特殊性和复杂性。“世界上既不存在定于一尊的现代化模式，也不存在放之四海而皆准的现代化标准。”综合地看，人类社会的现代化可以看作一种在经济领域从农业文明到工业文明、在政治领域从专制制度到民主制度或法治制度、在社会领域从农耕（乡土）文明到城市文明、在精神（包括思想观念、价值理念、道德生活、个性特征）领域从普遍一律到多种样态的互动发展过程，工业化、市场化、民主化、法治化、社会化、理性化、城市化、个性化、信息化、绿色化等已经成为“现代化”或“现代性”的丰富内涵，成为现代文明的丰富内容。世界现代化运动的普遍性、共同性和特殊性、复杂性，决定了人类社会现代化过程及其结果的复杂性，也决定了世界现代化理论研究的极其复杂性。

I. The World Modernization Movement Has All Experienced Bloodshed and Birth Pains

一、世界现代化运动都曾历经血腥和阵痛

When people talk about modernization today, it seems to be a very desirable thing, as if modernization means the good life for human society. In fact, whether it is the early-onset type of modernization or the catch-up type, both have experienced bloodshed and birth pains. History shows that the birth process of the modern economy, modern politics, and modern society in the vast majority of countries and regions in the world was once a process of change and development full of bloodshed, heart-wrenching and agonizing pain. Those harmed include not only the suspicious peasants, such as in the British Enclosure Movement, the American Civil War and Westward Movement, but also the black slave trade in the early modernization of capitalist countries, the enthusiastic foreign immigrants—for example, the modernization of the United States and Australia was filled with the bitterness and blood and tears of “black slaves” and “Chinese laborers”—and even more so, the many colonial wars of aggression and even world wars launched to achieve modernization, such as the two world wars and the wars of aggression launched by capitalist powers against China in modern times. Only after experiencing many disasters did human society gradually strike a balance between individual effort, national responsibility, and world peace, forming a relatively stable world system and human order. Only then did it gradually embark on the path of getting along among nations calling for “peace and development,” on the path of cooperation among nations hoping to share the fruits of world modernization development. Only then did it gradually conclude and form international public standards such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and establish social welfare security systems and human quality of life index systems.

今天人们谈论现代化，似乎是非常令人向往的事情，似乎现代化就意味着人类社会的美好生活。事实上，无论是早发型的现代化还是追赶型的现代化，都曾历经血腥和阵痛。历史表明，世界上绝大多数国家和地区的现代化经济、现代化政治、现代化社会的诞生过程，都曾是一个历经血腥、钻心而又揪心、阵痛的变化发展过程，受伤害的不仅有充满疑虑的农民，如英国的圈地运动、美国的南北战争和西进运动，而且还有早期资本主义国家现代化的黑奴贸易，满腔热情的外来移民，如美国、澳大利亚等的现代化发展都充满了“黑奴”和“华工”的辛酸和血泪，更有为了实现现代化而发动的许多殖民侵略战争乃至世界性战争，如两次世界大战和近代以来中国遭遇的资本主义列强发动的侵略战争。经历许多灾难之后，人类社会才终于在个人努力、国家责任和世界安宁之间逐步取得平衡，形成一个相对稳定的世界体系和人类秩序，才逐步走上呼唤“和平与发展”的世界各国相处之道，走上希望共享世界现代化发展成果的世界各国合作之途，才逐步缔结和形成公民权利与政治权利国际公约、世界人权宣言和经济、社会、文化权利国际公约等国际性公共标准，建立起社会福利保障体系和人类生活质量指数体系等。

During the period of primitive accumulation of capital, the modernization process of Western capitalist countries not only involved the bloody process of violently oppressing their own working people, but also the criminal process of plundering the working people of colonies and semi-colonies by bloody means.

在资本原始积累时期，西方资本主义国家的现代化发展过程，不仅有着用暴力压榨本国劳动人民的血腥过程，更有着用血腥手段掠夺殖民地半殖民地劳动人民的罪恶历程。

The early modernization of capitalist countries, domestically, was almost entirely filled with direct bloody oppression of their own working people. It can be said that the history of the bourgeoisie’s rise to wealth is a history of criminal bloody oppression. In the process of primitive accumulation of capital, each capitalist country enacted cruel laws through the state apparatus and used state violence to suppress the resistance of peasants who had been dispossessed of their land and hired workers. The workers, “by these strange, terroristic laws, were forced, through whipping, branding, and torture, to become accustomed to the discipline necessary for the wage-labor system.” [2]2 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 28: “Bloody Legislation against the Expropriated, from the End of the 15th Century. Forcing Down of Wages by Acts of Parliament.” Marx profoundly pointed out that “all these methods make use of state power, that is, the concentrated and organized force of society, to hasten, as in a hothouse, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode of production, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. Force itself is an economic power.” [3]3 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.” Marx profoundly exposed and criticized the crimes and sins of capitalists using cruel and bloody means for primitive accumulation of capital. He said that ever since “capital comes into the world, it drips from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” [4]4 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.” And the capitalists’ “expropriation of the direct producers” was “accomplished with the most ruthless barbarism, and under the stimulus of the most infamous, the most sordid, the most petty and the most odious of passions.” [5]5 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 32: “Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation.” Marx pointed out that this history of capital’s expropriation of the direct producers is written into the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire. The British Enclosure Movement and the American Westward Movement are direct proof of this.

资本主义国家的早期现代化，对国内而言，几乎都充满了对本国劳动人民的直接血腥压榨，可以说，资产阶级的发家史就是一部罪恶的血腥压榨史。在资本原始积累过程中，各个资本主义国家都曾通过国家机器制定残酷的法律，运用国家暴力手段镇压被剥夺土地的农民和雇佣工人的反抗。工人“由于这些古怪的恐怖的法律，通过鞭打、烙印、酷刑,被迫习惯于雇佣劳动制度所必需的纪律”。马克思深刻指出，资本原始积累的“所有这些方法都利用国家权力，也就是利用集中的、有组织的社会暴力，来大力促进从封建生产方式向资本主义生产方式的转化过程，缩短过渡时间。暴力是每一个孕育着新社会的旧社会的助产婆。暴力本身就是一种经济力”。马克思深刻揭露和批判了资本家运用残酷血腥手段进行资本原始积累的罪恶和罪行。他说，自从“资本来到世间，从头到脚，每个毛孔都滴着血和肮脏的东西”。而资本家“对直接生产者的剥夺”，则“是用最残酷无情的野蛮手段，在最下流、最龌龊、最卑鄙和最可恶的贪欲的驱使下完成的”。马克思指出，资本对直接生产者的这种剥夺的历史是用血和火的文字载入人类编年史的。英国的圈地运动、美国的西进运动等，都是直接证明。

The early modernization of capitalist countries, internationally, was even more filled with direct aggression and plunder of colonies and semi-colonies, from launching wars of aggression, plundering resources, to extracting surplus value, selling black slaves, and plundering wealth through currency, all using very cruel and bloody means. From the mid-to-late 15th century onwards, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Britain, France, and other countries that first entered capitalism successively embarked on the path of colonial expansion, conquering underdeveloped countries or regions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America by force, thereby accelerating capitalist primitive accumulation. According to statistics, in the more than 300 years from the 16th to the 19th century, Western colonists took 2.5 million kilograms of gold and 100 million kilograms of silver from Central and South America. Taking Brazil alone as an example, the gold looted from Brazil was worth at least $600 million, and the diamonds looted were worth at least $300 million, while the profits squeezed from the sugar industry were ten times greater than those from gold and diamond mining. In the 50 years from 1840 to 1901, almost all Western capitalist countries had a history of invading China, signing more than 1,000 unequal treaties of various sizes, including ceding territory, paying indemnities, and seizing interests, from 21 million silver dollars to 8 million taels of silver each for military expenses, to 230 million taels of silver, and then to 450 million taels of silver—an astonishing amount. [6]6 These figures refer to indemnities imposed on China by foreign powers through unequal treaties, including the Treaty of Nanking (1842, 21 million silver dollars), the Treaty of Tientsin (1858, 8 million taels each to Britain and France), the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895, 230 million taels to Japan), and the Boxer Protocol (1901, 450 million taels to eight foreign powers).

资本主义国家的早期现代化，对世界而言，更是充满了对殖民地半殖民地的直接侵略掠夺，从发动侵略战争、掠夺资源到榨取剩余价值、贩卖黑奴、通过货币掠夺财富，都运用了非常残酷的血腥手段。从15世纪中后期开始，葡萄牙、西班牙、荷兰、英国、法国等最早进入资本主义的国家，先后都走上了殖民扩张的道路，通过武力征服亚非拉等发展落后的国家或地区，从而加速资本主义原始积累。有资料统计，在从16世纪到19世纪的300多年时间里，西方殖民者从中南美洲抢走250万公斤黄金、1亿公斤白银。仅以巴西为例，从巴西搜刮的黄金价值至少达6亿美元、搜刮的钻石价值至少达3亿美元，而从蔗糖业中榨取的利润则比从开采金矿和金刚钻矿还要大10倍。在1840年至1901年的50年间，几乎所有的西方资本主义国家都曾有过侵略中国的历史，签订了1000多个大大小小的不平等条约，包括割地赔款、攫取利益，从2100万银圆到各800万两白银的军费、到2.3亿两白银，再到4.5亿两白银，数目惊人。

In the early stages of Western-style modernization, capitalist countries such as Britain, France, and Germany not only plundered large quantities of raw materials and carved up markets in African and Asian colonies, but also carried out the inhumane transatlantic black slave trade. The long-term poverty of the vast number of developing countries or regions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America today is, to some extent, directly related to the aggression and plunder of colonies by capitalist countries in the early process of modernization. Marx, taking the Netherlands as an example, profoundly exposed the bloody means by which capitalist countries brutally plundered colonies: “The history of the colonial administration of Holland—and Holland was the head capitalistic nation of the 17th century—‘is one of the most extraordinary relations of treachery, bribery, massacre, and meanness.’ Nothing is more characteristic than their system of stealing men, to get slaves for Java. The men stealers were trained for this purpose. The thieves, the interpreters, and the sellers were the chief agents in this trade, the native princes the chief sellers. The young people thus stolen were thrown into the secret dungeons of Celebes, until they were ready for shipment to the slave-ships.” [7]7 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist,” citing Thomas Stamford Raffles, *The History of Java* (1817). He also pointed out: “The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production.” [8]8 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.”

在西方式现代化的发展早期，英国、法国、德国等资本主义国家不仅大量攫取非洲、亚洲殖民地的原材料和宰割市场，而且进行了惨无人道的跨大西洋黑奴贸易。现如今的亚非拉广大发展中国家或地区的长期贫困，在某种程度上说，都与资本主义国家在早期现代化进程中对殖民地的侵略掠夺有一定直接关系。马克思曾以荷兰为例，深刻揭露了资本主义国家残酷掠夺殖民地的血腥手段：“荷兰——它是17世纪标准的资本主义国家——经营殖民地的历史，‘展示出一幅背信弃义、贿赂、残杀和卑鄙行为的绝妙图画’。最有代表性的是，荷兰人为了使爪哇岛得到奴隶而在西里伯斯岛实行盗人制度。为此目的训练了一批盗人的贼。盗贼、译员、贩卖人就是这种交易的主要代理人，土著王子是主要的贩卖人。盗来的青年在长大成人可以装上奴隶船以前，被关在西里伯斯岛的秘密监狱中。”他还指出：“美洲金银产地的发现，土著居民的被剿灭、被奴役和被埋葬于矿井，对东印度开始进行的征服和掠夺，非洲变成商业性地猎获黑人的场所。这一切标志着资本主义生产时代的曙光。”

On the development path of “Western-path modernization,” the primitive accumulation of capital is filled with plunder, colonization, enslavement, war, and aggression. The early Western capitalist countries first achieved industrialization through the scientific and technological revolution and the industrial revolution, then used powerful military forces to support acts of aggression, plunder, colonization, enslavement, and war, in order to open up, maintain, and support capital’s global profit-making. In the more than 400 years since the world entered the modern era, the wars and aggressions triggered by capitalist countries’ pursuit of modernization are countless; the populations killed by war and slaughter are also countless, while the populations enslaved number in the billions. The internal contradictions accumulated through this process reached a preliminary relative balance only after two world wars. Therefore, the development path of Western-path modernization has been bloody all along the way, realized through aggression, plunder, colonization, enslavement, and war. The so-called freedom, democracy, fraternity, and human rights that Western-path modernization preaches are also far removed from the ideas of freedom, democracy, fraternity, and human rights advocated during the European Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment; they are not to be mentioned in the same breath. They have become a set of ideological discourse serving the legitimacy of the Western-path modernization model, a global rhetoric of deception and hypocrisy. “The law of the jungle” and “discursive deception” are the two—hard and soft—hands of the Western-path modernization model.

在“西方式现代化”的发展道路上，资本的原始积累充满着劫掠、殖民、奴役、战争、侵略。西方早期资本主义国家首先通过科技革命、工业革命来实现工业化的发展，然后通过强大的军事力量来支持侵略、劫掠、殖民、奴役、战争等行为，来开辟、维护和支持资本在全球的获利。在世界进入近现代以来的400多年时间里，由于资本主义国家实现现代化而引发的战争和侵略，无以计数；由于战争和杀戮的人口，也无以计数，奴役的人口则以数十亿计。其积累的内部矛盾，经过两次世界大战才达到初步的相对平衡。所以，西方式现代化的发展道路，一路上都是血淋淋的，是依靠侵略、劫掠、殖民、奴役、战争来实现的，西方式现代化宣扬的所谓自由、民主、博爱、人权，也与欧洲文艺复兴运动、宗教改革运动和思想启蒙运动时期所宣扬的自由、民主、博爱、人权思想相去甚远，不可同日而语，已成为一套为西方式现代化道路正当性服务的意识形态话语，成为具有欺骗性和虚伪性的世界话术。“丛林法则”和“话语欺骗”是西方式现代化道路的软硬两手。

The so-called “aggression and colonization” refers to the way in which early-modernizing capitalist countries, through aggression and plunder of weaker nations, peoples, and regions, turned them into colonies or semi-colonies, employing various methods including armed invasion and military conquest, political interference and political control, economic persecution and economic plunder, and cultural transplantation and cultural infiltration. By launching aggressive wars and achieving victory, they then forced the defeated countries or regions to sign a series of unequal treaties, thereby controlling the defeated countries’ or regions’ economic, political, cultural, and diplomatic affairs, subjecting them to extremely severe oppression in all aspects—economic, political, cultural, and so on—and bringing profound disasters to the defeated countries or regions. In essence, “aggression and colonization” is also a form of capital expansion. The colonists frantically dumped commodities and exported capital, plundered resources and seized wealth in the colonies and semi-colonies, all in pursuit of maximizing capital returns and extracting the maximum surplus value.

所谓“侵略殖民”，是指早发型现代化的资本主义国家，通过侵略、掠夺弱小国家、民族和地区，将其变为殖民地或者半殖民地，包括武装入侵与军事征服、政治干涉与政治控制、经济迫害与经济掠夺、文化移植与文化渗透等多种多样的方式。通过发动侵略战争取得胜利，然后逼迫战败国家或地区签订一系列不平等条约，从而控制战败国家或地区的经济、政治、文化、外交等事务,使其经济、政治、文化等各方面都受到极其严重的压迫，给战败国家或地区带来深重灾难。在本质上说，“侵略殖民”也是资本扩张的表现形式。殖民者在殖民地半殖民地疯狂倾销商品和输出资本、掠夺资源和占领财富，也是为了追求资本效益最大化，榨取最大限度的剩余价值。

Clearly, the path of modernization for human society cannot be only the Western-path modernization model, nor can it be only that model. Otherwise, human society would be filled with nothing but aggression, plunder, colonization, enslavement, and war. The successful creation and practice of the Chinese-path modernization model proves that the path of modernization is not only the “evil road” of “Western-path modernization” development, but also the “good way” of “Chinese-path modernization” development—that is, there is not only the “evil road” of aggression, plunder, colonization, enslavement, and war, but also the “good way” of mutual benefit, openness, win-win outcomes, peace, and cooperation. The modernization development of a country or region can be gradually advanced entirely through reform and opening up, learning and drawing on experience, self-exploration, unremitting struggle, and developmental accumulation. The Chinese-path modernization model not only provides new paths and new choices for developing countries that hope to move toward modernization, but also offers the “good way” for human society to move toward modernization—internally through reform and opening up, learning and drawing on experience, self-exploration, unremitting struggle, and developmental accumulation, and externally through a modernization development path of peace, cooperation, mutual benefit, and win-win outcomes. This is the true and correct path for human society to move toward modernization.

显然，人类社会的现代化发展道路，不可能只有西方式现代化的发展道路，也不能只有西方式现代化的发展道路。否则，人类社会就只能充满着侵略、劫掠、殖民、奴役和战争。中国式现代化道路的成功开创和实践证明，现代化的发展道路并不是只有“西方式现代化”发展的“恶之路”，而是还有“中国式现代化”发展的“善之道”，即不仅仅只有通过侵略、劫掠、殖民、奴役、战争这一条“恶之路”，而且还有互利、开放、共赢、和平、合作这一条“善之道”。一个国家或地区的现代化发展，完全可以通过改革开放、学习借鉴、自我探索、不懈奋斗和发展积累来逐步推进。中国式现代化道路不仅给那些希望走向现代化的发展中国家提供了新路径新选择，而且给出了人类社会走向现代化的“善之道”——对内通过改革开放、学习借鉴、自我探索、不懈奋斗和发展积累，对外通过和平、合作、互利、共赢的现代化发展之路。这才是人类社会走向现代化的人间正道。

II. The Characterization of “Modern,” “Modernity,” and “Modernization” Is Extremely Complex

二、“现代”“现代性”“现代化”的定性极其复杂

Up to the present, the first and greatest perplexity in the study of world modernization theory is that the understanding of terms such as “modern,” “modernity,” and “modernization” is extremely broad in meaning, encompassing almost everything; the definitions of “modern,” “modernity,” and “modernization” are still diverse and inconclusive. Because modernization is a historical phenomenon, a global trend, a developmental process, and a comprehensive form of social progress, its complexity determines the extreme complexity of terms such as “modern,” “modernity,” and “modernization.” However, the reason modernization development has become a global trend lies precisely in its social progressiveness and the infinite charm brought by its complexity. To some extent, it can be said that terms such as “modern,” “modernity,” and “modernization” encompass almost everything; anything related to modernity and the progress of human social development seems to be includable in the meaning of “modernity” and “modernization,” or ought to be included in the meaning of “modernity” and “modernization.”

世界现代化理论研究发展至今，首先一个最大的困惑，就是对“现代”“现代性”“现代化”等词的理解，可谓含义极广，无所不包；对“现代”“现代性”“现代化”等词的定义，至今仍然认识不一，莫衷一是。由于现代化是一种历史现象、世界潮流和发展过程、社会进步的综合样态，其复杂性也就决定了“现代”“现代性”“现代化”等词的极其复杂性。然而，现代化发展之所以成为世界潮流，也就在于它的社会进步性和由其复杂性所带来的无穷魅力。在某种程度上，可以说“现代”“现代性”“现代化”等词几乎无所不包，大凡与现代、人类社会发展进步相关的一切东西，似乎都可以包括在“现代性”“现代化”的含义之中，或者应该包括在“现代性”“现代化”的含义当中。

The immense inclusiveness of “modernity” and “modernization” may be closely related to the immense inclusiveness of the term “modern.” It can be considered that everything that is “modern” should be included in the meaning of “modernity” and “modernization.” Or, conversely, only things that have already been “modernized” can be called “modern” things or “modernity.” Clearly, things still belonging to the category of “tradition” cannot be called “modern” things or “modernity”; they can only be called “traditional” things or “traditionality.” And “traditional” things or “traditionality” must all be “modernized,” or undergo creative transformation and innovative development to meet the requirements of modernization, before they can be transformed into “modernity” and be called “modern” things.

“现代性”“现代化”的巨大包容性，也许与“现代”一词的巨大包容性密切相关。可以认为，凡是一切“现代”的东西，都应该包含在“现代性”“现代化”的含义当中。或者说，凡是已经“现代化”了的东西，才能被称为“现代”的东西或“现代性”。显然，不能把还属于“传统”范畴内的东西也称之为“现代”的东西，或称之为“现代性”，而只能称之为“传统”的东西或“传统性”，而“传统”的东西或“传统性”都应该“现代化”，或实现适应现代化要求的创造性转化和创新性发展，才能转变为“现代性”，才能称之为“现代”的东西。

Equally clearly, whether “modern,” “modernity,” or “modernization,” in a certain sense they all contain two aspects of meaning: “what is” and “what ought to be.” The so-called “what is” means that anything that has already been “modernized” can be classified under the category of “modern” and “modernity”; the so-called “what ought to be” means that those things that ought to belong to the category of “modern” but still retain traditionality should all achieve “modernization” and be transformed into “modernity.” That is to say, the so-called “modern,” “modernity,” and “modernization,” in a certain sense, are both a reality and an ideal. Moreover, if “modern” and “modernity” are static, then “modernization” is not only a static state but also a dynamic one, encompassing the process of change and development from “tradition” to “modern,” from traditionality to modernity. Generally speaking, whether “modern,” “modernity,” or “modernization,” they all refer to a relatively long period of time, and these terms are all very inclusive. At the same time, the connotations and denotations of these terms are dynamic, changing, and developing.

同样也很显然，无论是“现代”还是“现代性”“现代化”，在一定意义上都包含着“实然”与“应然”两个方面的含义。所谓“实然”，就是大凡已经“现代化”了的东西，都可以把它归属于“现代”“现代性”的范畴；所谓“应然”，就是那些应该成为“现代”范畴却仍然具有传统性的东西，都应该实现“现代化”，转变为“现代性”。也就是说，所谓“现代”“现代性”和“现代化”，在一定意义上说，既是一种现实又是一种理想。不仅如此，如果说“现代”“现代性”是一个静态的话，那么“现代化”则不仅是一种静态，而且还是一种动态，包含着从“传统”转变为“现代”、从传统性转化为现代性的变化过程和发展过程。一般来说，无论是“现代”“现代性”还是“现代化”，都已经是一个比较长的时间段，而且这几个词的包容性都很大。同时，这几个词的内涵与外延又是动态的、变化的、发展的。

The term “modern” includes at least two layers of meaning: first, as a temporal concept used to demarcate historical stages. Whether it is the “modern” concept in a broad sense—the world historical stage since the Renaissance—or the “modern history” concept in the historiographical sense—the world historical stage after the October Revolution in Russia [9]9 The October Revolution refers to the Bolshevik-led uprising in Russia in November 1917 (October by the Julian calendar), which established the world’s first socialist state.—or, in the field of science and technology, the world historical stage beginning with the third scientific and technological revolution [10]10 The third scientific and technological revolution, also known as the digital revolution, refers to the period of rapid technological development from the mid-20th century onward, centered on computers, information technology, and automation. following the steam engine revolution and the electrical revolution, overall, the term “modern” refers to a temporal concept. Second, as a qualitative concept used to express characteristics consistent with modern society, it mainly refers to all the results, states, and developmental processes formed since the world modernization movement. In a broad sense, the term “modern” includes the new modern phenomena and new characteristics of modern society formed since the Renaissance, encompassing the modernized developmental states and results ranging from ideological concepts, value ideas, moral consciousness, and rule-of-law thinking to the scientific and technological revolution, industrial development, political change, social transformation, governance transition, and ecological environment.

“现代”一词，至少包括两层含义：一是作为用来划分历史阶段的时间概念。无论是泛指意义上的“现代”概念——文艺复兴以来的世界历史阶段，还是历史学意义上的“现代史”概念——俄国十月革命以后的世界历史阶段，抑或科技领域继蒸汽机革命、电力革命之后，以第三次科技革命为开端的世界历史阶段，总体而言，“现代”一词都是指一个时间概念；二是作为用来表达与现代社会特征等相一致的性质概念，主要指自世界现代化运动以来所形成的一切结果、状态及其发展进程。从广义上讲，“现代”一词包括自文艺复兴运动以来所形成的现代新现象和现代社会的新特征，包括从思想观念、价值理念、道德意识、法治思维到科技革命、工业发展、政治变革、社会变迁、治理转型、生态环境等的现代化发展状态和结果。

The term “modernity” is mainly used to describe a characteristic and state of “the modern” and modern society, signifying that in the course of modernization, a country or region gradually forms a continuously progressive, purposive, and irreversible set of modern social characteristics and modern social states. It is a whole set of economic development concepts, national political concepts, law-based society concepts, cultural development models, efficient social organization mechanisms, and modern civilizational modes established in the historical practice of advancing modernization, which are compatible with modern value concepts — that is, modern modes of production, existence, and life. Various terms are used to describe modernity, such as individualization, rationalization, secularization, scientization, democratization, legalization, bureaucratization, commodification, homogenization, singularization, hybridization, diversification, centralization, marginalization, mechanization, totalization, individuality, one-dimensionality, individualism, subjectivism, objectivism, reductionism, mass society, industrial society, class organization, linear progress, consumerism, hedonism, decontextualization, alienation, and so on. In the current global configuration of modernity, there exists a state of coexistence between two systems, capitalism and socialism, and their respective modernities, which are fundamentally different in terms of system and exhibit various differences in characteristics and states.

“现代性”一词，则主要用来描述“现代”和现代社会的一种特性和状态，意味着一个国家或地区在现代化发展的进程中，逐渐形成的一种持续进步的、合目的性的、不可逆转的现代社会特性和现代社会状态，是一个国家或地区在不断推进现代化发展的历史实践中，建立起来的一整套与现代价值理念相适应的经济发展观念、国家政治观念、法治社会观念、文化发展模式、高效率社会组织机制和现代文明方式等，即现代生产方式、生存方式和生活方式。有各种各样的词汇被用来描述现代性，如个体化、理性化、世俗化、科学化、民主化、法治化、官僚化、商品化、同质化、单一化、交杂化、多样化、中心化、边缘化、机械化、极权化、个体性、单面性、个人主义、主观主义、客观主义、化约主义、大众社会、工业社会、阶级组织、线性进程、消费主义、享乐主义、去脉络化、异化，等等。在当今世界的现代性格局中，存在资本主义与社会主义两种制度并存的状态及其现代性，两者存在制度上的根本区别和各种特征、状态差别。

As for so-called “modernization,” viewed from the developmental course of modernization, it can be described as a general description of the historical phenomena, world trends, developmental processes, and social progress that human society has experienced since entering the modern era. That is to say, the meaning of the term “modernization” is very complex; its connotation includes multiple key concepts, possesses processuality, developmental character, and progressiveness, and can be understood from multiple angles and multiple levels.

而所谓“现代化”，从现代化的发展历程看，则可以说是一种对人类社会进入现代以来的历史现象、世界潮流、发展过程和社会进步的总体性描述。也就是说，“现代化”一词的含义非常复杂，其内涵包括多个关键词，具有过程性、发展性和进步性，可以从多个角度、多个层次来理解。

First, modernization is understood as a historical phenomenon. Even when described in terms of the unfolding of the main themes and main lines of modernization, modernization can be said to be a very complex and all-encompassing historical phenomenon, which can have multiple threads such as geographical environment, science and technology, economic development, political systems, ideology and culture, social change, and ecological environment, and also includes differences such as early-starting and late-starting, East and West, etc. At the same time, it can also be seen that modernization, as a universal world phenomenon, has already undergone profound changes in both content and form. The intrinsic determinants of early modernization, such as industrialization, urbanization, steam power, and electrification, are no longer comparable to the intrinsic determinants of modernization in the present era, such as democratization, legalization, greening, networking, and intelligentization. Modernization is continuously developing toward higher stages; the driving forces, structural elements, core technologies, and development trends of modernization have undergone qualitative changes compared to its initial stage. Therefore, so-called “modernization” has not yet formed a universally accepted unified definition or a consensus understanding; modernization is regarded as a developing, changing, and dynamic historical process. It could even be said that modernization is still a very vague concept, merely signifying all the developmental progress of human society and the pursuit of the goals of a better life.

一是把现代化作为一种历史现象。即使从现代化的主题主线的展开来描述，现代化也可谓是一种十分纷繁复杂、包罗万象的历史现象，可以有地理环境、科学技术、经济发展、政治制度、思想文化、社会变迁、生态环境等多个线索，还包括先发与后发、东方与西方等差异。同时，还可以看到，现代化作为一种普遍性的世界现象，无论内容还是形式，都已经发生深刻变化。早期现代化的内在规定性诸如工业化、城市化、蒸汽化、电气化等，与当今时代现代化的内在规定性诸如民主化、法治化、绿色化、网络化和智能化等，已经不可同日而语。现代化不断向更加高级的阶段发展，现代化的发展动力、结构要素、核心技术和发展趋势，同起始阶段相比已经发生质的变化。因此，所谓“现代化”，至今也没有形成一个公认的统一定义，形成一致的认识，现代化被认为是一个发展的、变化的、动态的历史进程。甚至可以说，现代化还是一个非常含糊的概念，只是意味着人类社会的一切发展进步和对美好生活目标的追求。

Second, modernization is understood as a world trend. Scientifically revealing why modernization is a developmental progress and direction that conforms to the laws of human social development, and why it is a world trend, is both a major theoretical issue and a major practical issue. Analyzed using Marxist historical materialism, it can be seen that the laws of modernization development include both universal general laws and the special and specific laws of different countries or regions. Human society in the present era exhibits various developmental characteristics. The so-called present era is also an era rich in modern features and continuing to develop and progress; it is the modern characteristics of human society in the present era or modern life — human, social, ecological, and even natural — and it is an ongoing, developing dynamic process and practical activity, manifested as a progressive trend, developmental current, and forward direction universally pursued by humanity and conforming to certain developmental laws. Understood from this angle, “modernization” seems to be the “changes occurring in the present era” that conform to the progressive trend, developmental current, and forward direction of human society. In other words, “modernization” seems to refer to all processes and results that conform to the direction of human social development and the trend of progress. Within the historical time period and resultant state of “the modern” and “modernity,” the processes and results of a series of profound changes and historical transformations in the economy, politics, culture, society, etc., of human society can all be regarded as so-called “modernization.”

二是把现代化作为一种世界潮流。科学揭示现代化为什么是符合人类社会发展规律的发展进步和发展方向、为什么是一种世界潮流，既是一个理论大课题，又是一个实践大课题。用马克思主义唯物史观来分析，可以看到，现代化的发展规律既包括世界性的一般规律，又包括不同国家或地区的特殊规律和具体规律，人类社会发展到现时代表现出各种各样的发展特征。所谓现时代，也是一个富有现代特征并继续发展进步的时代，是人类社会在现时代或现代生活中人的、社会的、生态的乃至自然的现代特征，是正在发生、发展的动态过程和现实活动，表现为人类普遍追求的、符合一定发展规律的进步趋势、发展潮流和前进方向。从这一角度理解“现代化”，似乎“现代化”就是符合人类社会的进步趋势、发展潮流和前进方向的“现时代正在发生的变化”。换言之，“现代化”似乎是指一切符合人类社会发展方向和进步潮流的进程及其结果。在“现代”“现代性”这样一个历史时间段和结果状态里，人类社会所发生的经济、政治、文化、社会等一系列深刻变革和历史变迁的进程及其结果，都可以看作所谓的“现代化”。

Third, modernization is understood as a developmental process. Modernization is regarded as a process of movement and change toward the “goals of human social development and progress and the goals that humanity expects to achieve.” That is to say, in a general sense, “modernization” is a developmental process of human society transforming from traditional society to modern society. The so-called traditional society is a concept relative to modern society. For example, agricultural society is traditional relative to industrial society, while industrial society is modern relative to agricultural society. People generally hope to transform from traditional society to modern society, that is, to transition or develop from agricultural society to industrial society; this developmental process is modernization. It can be seen that no country or region’s modernization development is achieved overnight; the modernization of each country or region is very difficult, and the content of modernization is also three-dimensional, including multiple aspects and multiple links such as ideological change, technological innovation, industrial revolution, economic transformation, political development, social change, and governance improvement, which are gradually advanced and comprehensively enhanced. In some countries or regions, modernization even experiences twists and turns and reversals.

三是把现代化作为一种发展进程。现代化被认为是一种朝着“人类社会发展进步的目标和人类所期望实现的目标”运动变化的过程。也就是说，在一般意义上，“现代化”是一种人类从传统社会向现代社会转变的发展过程。所谓传统社会，是一个与现代社会相对的概念，如农业社会相对工业社会而言是传统社会，工业社会相对农业社会而言则是现代社会，人们普遍希望能够从传统社会转变为现代社会，也就是从农业社会过渡或发展到工业社会，这个发展过程就是现代化。可以看到，没有哪一个国家或地区的现代化发展是一蹴而就的，各国家或地区的现代化都是非常艰难的，现代化的内容也是立体化的，包括思想变革、技术创新、工业革命、经济转型、政治发展、社会变迁、治理提升等逐步推进、综合提升的多个方面和多个环节，有的国家或地区的现代化甚至出现曲折和反复。

Fourth, modernization is understood as social progress. The modernization development of a country or region undoubtedly requires an evaluation standard for judgment and measurement. Modernization development should be progressive, not stagnant or even regressive; it should move forward toward an increasingly better state, not toward an increasingly worsening state. Therefore, as a developmental process and result, modernization is obviously extremely complex, because the development of modernization does not necessarily achieve the goals that people expect and anticipate, and it cannot be smooth sailing. Those modernization development processes that achieve the anticipated “goals of human social development and progress and the goals that humanity expects to achieve” — such as realizing highly developed social productive forces, obtaining extremely abundant material wealth, establishing highly democratic political forms, forming a highly civilized social state and universally good civic qualities — are called successful modernization, or modern society, modern state. Those modernization development processes that do not achieve the anticipated “goals of social progress and the goals that humanity expects to achieve” are called failed modernization; relative to modern society, they are called backward society, backward country. In other words, the so-called modern society generally refers to modernization with a successful process, that is, a social state that has successfully moved from traditional society toward the anticipated “goals of social progress and the goals that humanity expects to achieve,” or has entered a historical development stage at the advanced level attainable by human progress.

四是把现代化作为一种社会进步。一个国家或地区的现代化发展，无疑需要一个评价标准来评判衡量。现代化发展应该是进步的而不应该是停滞的乃至退步的，应该是越来越美好地向前发展，而不应该是越来越恶化地向前发展。因此，作为一种发展过程和结果，现代化显然是极其复杂的，因为现代化的发展并不一定都能够达到人们所期望和所预期的目标，并不可能是一帆风顺的。那些取得了人类预期的“人类社会进步的目标和人类所期望实现的目标”的现代化发展过程，诸如实现了高度发达的社会生产力、获得了极为丰富的物质财富、建立了高度民主的政治形态、形成了高度文明的社会状态和普遍良好的公民素质等，都被称为成功的现代化，或被称为现代社会、现代国家；而那些没有达到人类预期的“社会进步的目标和人类所期望实现的目标”的现代化发展过程，则被称为失败的现代化，相对于现代社会而言，则被称为落后社会、落后国家。换言之，所谓现代社会，一般指的是过程成功的现代化，是指那种已经从传统社会向人类预期的“社会进步的目标和人类所期望实现的目标”成功迈进的社会状态，或已经进入人类进步所能达到的先进水平的历史发展阶段。

III. The Complexity of the World Modernization Development Process

三、世界现代化发展进程的复杂性

There are differing views in international academia on the origins of the world modernization movement. If we count from the Renaissance movement of the 14th–16th centuries, followed by the 16th-century Reformation, the 16th–17th-century Scientific Revolution, and the 17th–18th-century Enlightenment — that is, the modernization of ideas and of human beings — then it has been over 700 years. If we count from political modernization — the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, which established a constitutional monarchy and created the first modern state — then it has been over 300 years. If we count from the Industrial Revolution, which brought humanity into industrial society, then it has been over 200 years. Whether we consider the European Renaissance, the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, the English Glorious Revolution, the French political revolutions of the 18th–19th centuries and the American War of Independence and Civil War, or the first industrialization from the 1760s to the mid-19th century, the second Industrial Revolution from the late 19th century to the early 20th, the third Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 20th, and the fourth Industrial Revolution since the beginning of the 21st century — all of this shows that the world modernization movement is an extremely complex process of development.

关于世界现代化运动的发端，国际学术界有不同看法。如果从14—16世纪的文艺复兴运动开始的，历经16世纪的宗教改革运动、16—17世纪的科学革命运动和17—18世纪的思想启蒙运动而进行的思想观念现代化与人的现代化算起，至今已有700多年；如果从政治现代化——1688年英国的光荣革命确立君主立宪政体，建立首个现代国家算起，至今则有300多年；如果从工业革命把人类带入工业社会算起，至今也有200多年。无论是欧洲文艺复兴运动、宗教改革运动、科学革命、思想启蒙运动，还是英国的光荣革命、18—19世纪的法国政治革命和美国的独立战争与南北战争，再到18世纪60年代—19世纪中期的第一次工业化、19世纪下半叶—20世纪初的第二次工业革命、20世纪后半期的第三次工业革命、进入21世纪以来的第四次工业革命，都说明世界现代化运动是一个极其复杂的发展进程。

Historically, in the field of economics, various theories of economic cycles have emerged, attempting to explain the fluctuations and cycles of capitalist world economic development from different perspectives, especially that of economic development — that is, the complexity of economic modernization. This illustrates the complexity of the world modernization movement from one of its most important aspects — economic modernization — namely, the cyclical fluctuations of economic activity. These theories of economic cycles include the Keynesian business cycle theory, the Hayekian business cycle theory, the Schumpeterian business cycle theory, the Kondratiev wave theory, the Kuznets cycle theory, the Juglar cycle theory, the Kitchin cycle theory, and the real business cycle theory.

历史上，在经济学领域，曾出现过多种经济周期理论，试图从不同角度尤其是经济发展角度来解释资本主义世界经济发展的波动和循环，也就是经济现代化发展的复杂性。这从现代化的一个最重要侧面——经济现代化——经济活动的周期性波动，说明了世界现代化运动的复杂性。这些经济周期理论包括凯恩斯主义经济周期理论、哈耶克经济周期理论、熊彼特经济周期理论、康德拉季耶夫周期理论、库兹涅茨周期理论、朱格拉周期理论、基钦周期理论和真实经济周期理论等。

Take the Kondratiev wave theory as an example. The Russian economist Nikolai Kondratiev proposed a “long wave” theory, also known as the “great economic cycle theory” and the “Kondratiev wave theory.” This theory holds that the development of the capitalist economy is not a linear process but a wave-like, even leapfrogging, process of advance, with each great cycle having both an upward (prosperity) phase and a downward (recession) phase. In a certain sense, the “long wave” theory, from the perspective of capitalist world economic development, concretely demonstrates and explains the complexity of the world modernization development process. Through his research, Kondratiev discovered that in the process of capitalist economic modernization, there exists a cyclical movement of outward “expansion” and inward “adjustment,” with the average duration of one such long cycle being approximately 50–60 years. The “long wave” theory explains the internal contradictions of capitalist world economic development using internal factors of capitalist world economic development rather than external accidental factors, and thus possesses a certain depth and persuasiveness. Applying the method of social contradiction analysis from historical materialism, the “long wave” theory holds that the fundamental cause of the long-wave fluctuations in capitalist world economic development lies in the inherent internal factors and their contradictory movements specific to the capitalist world economy, especially those closely related to capital accumulation, rather than factors such as technological change in production, the opening of new markets, the outbreak of war, or the eruption of revolution, as some believe. Each “long wave” of capitalist world economic development — that is, one long cycle — can be further divided into an upward phase and a downward phase. The upward phase is characterized by rising profit rates, accelerated accumulation, and accelerated development, while the downward phase is characterized by declining profits, decelerated accumulation, and decelerated development.

以康德拉季耶夫周期理论为例。俄国经济学家尼古拉·康德拉季耶夫曾提出一种“长波”理论，亦称“大经济循环理论”和“康德拉季耶夫周期理论”。这一理论认为，资本主义经济的发展并不是一个直线式发展的过程，而是一个波浪式乃至跳跃式推进的过程，每一次大循环都有上升(繁荣)和下降(衰退)两个阶段。在一定意义上说，“长波”理论是从资本主义世界经济发展的角度，具体论证和说明了世界现代化发展进程的复杂性。通过研究，康德拉季耶夫发现，在资本主义经济现代化的发展过程中，存在着一种外向“扩张”与内向“调整”的周期性运动的发展现象，这种周期性交替的一个长周期时间平均大约在50—60年之间。“长波”理论用资本主义世界经济发展的内在因素而非外来偶发因素来说明资本主义世界经济发展的内在矛盾，具有一定的深刻性和说服力。“长波”理论运用唯物史观的社会矛盾分析方法，认为资本主义世界经济发展的长周期波动，根本原因在于资本主义世界经济所固有的内在因素及其矛盾运动，特别是与资本积累有密切关系的内在因素及其矛盾运动，而不是人们认为的生产技术变革、新市场开发、战争的发生和革命的爆发等。资本主义世界经济发展的每次“长波”即一个长周期，又可分为上升阶段与下降阶段，上升阶段表现为利润率增长、加速积累、加速发展，而下降阶段表现为利润衰退、积累减速、发展减速。

Through the processing and analysis of a large amount of statistical data from capitalist countries such as England, France, the United States, and Germany, as well as from the world economy over more than 100 years from the end of the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th century — including 36 series of statistical items such as wholesale price levels, interest rates, wages, and foreign trade — Kondratiev believed that the development of the capitalist world economy from the late 18th century onwards roughly contained three long wave cycles: The first long wave cycle ran from the trough of 1789 to the trough of 1849, with an upward phase of 25 years and a downward phase of 35 years, totaling about 60 years. The second long wave cycle ran from the trough of 1849 to the trough of 1896, with an upward phase of 24 years and a downward phase of 23 years, totaling about 47 years. The third long wave cycle ran from the trough of 1896 to the trough of 1945, with an upward phase of 24 years and a downward phase of 25 years, totaling about 49 years. The entire process of the three long wave cycles spanned about 150 years, with an average of approximately 50–60 years per long wave cycle.

康德拉季耶夫通过对英、法、美、德等资本主义国家以及18世纪末到20世纪初100多年世界经济的大量统计数据包括批发价格水平、利率、工资、对外贸易等36个系列统计项目的加工分析，认为从18世纪后期以来资本主义世界经济的发展大致包含三个长波周期：第一个长波周期的时间是从1789年的长波谷底至1849年的长波谷底，上升时间为25年，下降时间为35年，共约60年；第二个长波周期是自1849年的长波谷底至1896年的长波谷底，上升时间为24年，下降时间为23年，共约47年；第三个长波周期是自1896年的长波谷底至1945年的长波谷底，上升时间为24年，下降时间为25年，共约49年。三个长波周期全过程共约150年左右，平均约50—60年为一个长波周期。

The “long wave” theory points out that, corresponding to the long wave cycles of capitalist world economic development, the development of world modernization successively experienced three waves, with different countries or regions being drawn into these three waves of world modernization at different times: The first batch of countries or regions drawn into world modernization were mostly those that entered modernization spontaneously, catching the first train of world modernization in the first half of the 19th century. The second batch of countries or regions drawn into world modernization caught the second train of world modernization in the second half of the 19th century. The third batch of countries or regions drawn into world modernization only began to vigorously pursue the trend of world modernization development in the latter half of the 20th century, starting to board the express train of world modernization. At the same time, within the waves of world modernization development, a “center-periphery” phenomenon of the industrial economic system also took shape. Along with the rapid expansion of modernization to various countries and regions around the world, especially the deepening of the technological revolution and industrialization, originally relatively isolated and closed countries and regions were incorporated from local, regional development into a global, worldwide economic development system and international division of labor. This led to adjustments and changes in the world economic structure, forming a “center-periphery” structure in world economic development: the center mainly consisted of industrial countries or regions producing manufactured goods, the periphery mainly consisted of agricultural countries or regions producing primary industrial products, while countries or regions that did not enter the world economic development system and international division of labor remained outside the world economy.

“长波”理论指出，与资本主义世界经济发展的长波周期相对应，世界现代化发展先后出现了三次浪潮，世界上的不同国家或地区先后被卷入世界现代化的这三次浪潮：第一批卷入世界现代化的国家或地区，大都是自发进入现代化，在19世纪前半叶赶上世界现代化的头班车；第二批卷入世界现代化的国家或地区，在19世纪后半叶赶上世界现代化的第二趟班车；第三批卷入世界现代化的国家或地区，在20世纪后半叶才奋起直追世界现代化的发展潮流，开始搭上世界现代化的快车。同时，在世界现代化发展的浪潮中，还形成了工业化经济体系的“中心-边缘”现象。伴随着现代化向世界各国或地区快速扩展，尤其是科技革命和工业化的深入推进，原来相对孤立、封闭的国家和地区，都从地区性、区域性的发展被纳入全球性、世界性的经济发展体系和国际分工当中来，由此引起世界经济结构的调整和变化，世界经济发展形成一种“中心-边缘”性结构：中心主要为一些生产制造工业品的工业国或地区，边缘主要是一些生产初级工业产品的农业国或地区，没有进入世界经济发展体系和国际分工的国家或地区则游离于世界经济体之外。

Because the initial development of world modernization took industrialization as its economic pillar, the sustained growth of the industrial economy led to structural changes in economy and society. First, the proportion of industrial production in national output continuously rose, while the proportion of agricultural production in national output continuously fell; industrial production became an important pillar of national output, and industrialization became an important evaluation indicator of modernization. Second, along with the rapid development of industrialization, the population flowed and concentrated from rural areas to urban areas, and urbanization also became an important evaluation indicator of modernization. Thus, according to the degree of development and evaluation criteria of industrialization and urbanization, the position of different countries or regions within the world economy also differed. In a certain sense, so-called modernization is precisely the development from an agricultural productive forces form to an industrial productive forces form, and the development from an economic and social structural form characterized by rural areas to one characterized by urban areas.

由于世界现代化的发展最初是以工业化为经济支柱的，因此，工业经济的持续增长引起了经济社会发生结构性变化。一是工业生产在国民生产中的比重不断上升，农业生产在国民生产中的比重不断下降，工业生产成为国民生产的重要支柱，工业化成为现代化的重要评价指标；二是伴随着工业化的快速发展，人口从乡村地区向城市地区流动和聚集，城市化也成为现代化的重要评价指标。这样，根据工业化和城市化的发展程度和评价标准，不同国家或地区在世界经济体中的地位也不相同。在一定意义上说，所谓现代化，也就是农业化生产力形态向工业化生产力形态发展，以农村为主要特征的经济社会结构形态向以城市为主要特征的经济社会结构形态发展。

Taking the standard of industrialization as an example, Kondratiev believed that modern countries or regions can be roughly divided into four types: the first type of country or region is dominated by industrialization, with the total value of industrial products accounting for more than 60% of the total value of commodity production and per capita industrial output value exceeding $1,500; such countries or regions generally possess a mature industrial structure system and hold an advantageous position in the field of high technology. The second type of country or region has achieved semi-industrialization, with the total value of industrial products accounting for 40%–50% of the total value of commodity production; the industrial structure system of such countries or regions is not yet fully mature, their technological level is in a medium state, and industrial zones are concentrated in local areas, but they attempt to enter the mature industrial structure and high-tech fields. The third type of country or region has just entered industrialization, with a still very low proportion of industrialization, the total value of industrial products accounting for 20%–40% of the total value of commodity production; such countries or regions have weak infrastructure, mainly consisting of low-end industries and labor-intensive industries, and agricultural production is an important pillar of the national economy. The fourth type of country or region is still dominated by agriculture, with agriculture remaining the main pillar of the national economy and the total value of industrial products accounting for less than 20% of the total value of commodity production; to a certain extent, such countries or regions are still agricultural countries or regions rather than industrialized countries or regions.

以工业化标准为例，康德拉季耶夫认为，现代国家或地区大致可以分为四种类型：第一种类型的国家或地区以工业化占优势，工业品生产总值占商品生产总值的60%以上，人均工业品产值在1500美元以上，这类国家或地区一般具有成熟的工业结构体系，在高科技领域具有优势地位；第二种类型的国家或地区实现了半工业化，工业品生产总值占商品生产总值的40%—50%，这类国家或地区的工业结构体系还不够完全成熟，技术水平处于中等状态，工业区也集中在局部地区，但试图进入成熟的工业结构和高科技领域；第三种类型的国家或地区刚刚步入工业化，工业化比例还很低，工业品生产总值占商品生产总值的20%—40%，这类国家或地区的基础设施薄弱，主要是一些低端工业和劳动密集型工业，农业生产是国民生产的重要支柱；第四种类型的国家或地区仍然以农业化为主体，农业仍然是国民经济的主要支柱，工业品生产总值占商品生产总值在20%以下，这类国家或地区，在一定程度上说，仍然是农业化国家或地区而非工业化国家或地区。

IV. The Development Models of World Modernization Are Diverse

四、世界现代化发展模式具有多样性

The development process of the world modernization movement shows that, influenced by various conditions and factors such as geographical location, natural conditions, cultural traditions, values, and economic, political, and technological aspects of different countries or regions, there is no unified model for either the first-mover “Western-style modernization” or the catch-up modernization of developing countries or regions. Even for countries or regions with the same social system, the specific manifestations of their modernization are not entirely identical but are diverse, exhibiting diversity and complexity.

世界现代化运动的发展进程表明，受不同国家或地区的地理位置、自然条件、文化传统、价值观念和经济、政治、技术等各方面条件和因素影响，无论是先发型的“西方式现代化”还是追赶型的发展中国家或地区的现代化，并没有一个统一模式，即使社会制度相同的每个国家或地区，其现代化的具体表现形态也并不是完全相同的，而是多种多样的，具有多样性和复杂性。

1. Western-Style Modernization Is Diverse

1.西方式现代化具有多样性

The modernization movement that arose in Europe not only brought about the rise and development of Western capitalist countries, forming the Western capitalist mode of production, mode of existence, and mode of life, and creating Western capitalist modern civilization, but also influenced and propelled the colonies and semi-colonies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to follow the path of world modernization. Marx and Engels pointed out that the modern civilization initiated by capitalism caused the entire world to form universal relations of intercourse: “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization.” Since the world entered the modern era, as a continuous and dynamic movement of human social development, the world modernization movement has developed to this day, giving rise to two fundamentally different and essentially distinct types of modernization: those of a capitalist nature and those of a socialist nature. In the process of conducting empirical and comparative studies on the modernization development of different countries or regions, many scholars have discovered that, as a dynamic movement, even among first-mover Western-style modernizations, all belonging to countries with capitalist systems, their development models are not universally uniform but are different and distinctive, also exhibiting diversified characteristics.

从欧洲兴起的现代化运动，不仅造就了西方资本主义国家的兴起和发达，形成西方资本主义生产方式、生存方式和生活方式，形成了西方资本主义现代文明，而且影响和推动了亚非拉殖民地半殖民地国家跟着走上世界现代化的发展道路。马克思恩格斯指出，资本主义开创的现代性文明使整个世界都形成普遍的交往关系，“资产阶级，由于一切生产工具的迅速改进，由于交通的极其便利，把一切民族甚至最野蛮的民族都卷到文明中来了”。自世界进入近现代以来，作为人类社会发展一种持续性、动态性的运动，世界现代化运动发展至今，已经有了资本主义性质和社会主义性质两种制度根本不同的、具有本质区别的现代化类型。在对不同国家或地区的现代化发展进行实证和比较研究的过程中，许多学者都发现，作为一种动态性运动，即使先发型的西方式现代化，同样都属于资本主义制度的国家，其发展模式也并不是普遍一律的，而是不尽相同、各具特色的，同样具有多样化特征。

First, Western-style modernization has both commonality and particularity. Generally speaking, so-called “Western-style modernization” refers to the modernization of countries or regions built on the basis of the capitalist system, which universally possess the commonality, universality, and generality of the capitalist system. However, the commonality, universality, and generality of their capitalist systems do not negate the differences, particularities, and individuality existing in their modernization models. For example, Western-style modernization generally experienced ideological emancipation and enlightenment, conceptual revolutions and scientific revolutions, industrial revolutions and technological revolutions; all overthrew feudal autocratic rule and established bourgeois democratic regimes; all implemented capitalist democratization and rule of law; all established a market economy model dominated by private ownership; primitive capital accumulation all adopted bloody means of exploitation and colonial expansion; generally believed in utilitarian, individualistic, and hedonistic values; and generally believed in the law of the jungle and the logic that a strong country is bound to seek hegemony. However, these commonalities, universalities, and generalities of Western-style modernization are also abstracted from differences, particularities, and individualities. The modernization paths of different countries and regions are not entirely identical, and their specific manifestations are vastly different. For instance, from the perspective of the chronological order of economic modernization and political modernization, even the early-onset modernizations of countries like Britain, France, the United States, and Germany, although all driven by industrialization and capitalist democratization, had different and distinct development processes. For example, Britain and the United States, although both unfolded along the sequence of industrialization and capitalist democratization simultaneously, had very different specific manifestations. Another example is France and Germany: France had capitalist democratization before industrialization, while Germany had industrialization before capitalist democratization.

首先，西方式现代化既有共同性又有特殊性。一般而言，所谓“西方式现代化”，是指那些建立在资本主义制度基础上的国家或地区的现代化，它们普遍具有资本主义制度的共同性、普遍性和一般性。然而，其资本主义制度的共同性、普遍性和一般性，并不是否定其现代化模式存在的差异性、特殊性和个别性。比如，西方式现代化一般都经历过思想解放和思想启蒙，经历过观念革命和科学革命、经历过工业革命和技术革命，都推翻了封建专制统治、建立了资产阶级民主政体，都实行了资本主义民主化、法治化，都建立了以私有制为主体的市场经济模式，资本原始积累都采取了血腥榨取、殖民扩张的血腥手段，一般都信奉功利主义、个人主义、享乐主义价值观，都信奉丛林法则和国强必霸的逻辑等。但是，西方式现代化的这些共同性、普遍性和一般性，也是从差异性、特殊性和个别性中抽象出来的，不同国家和地区的现代化道路并不完全相同，具体表现形态更是千差万别。比如从经济现代化与政治现代化的先后顺序看，即使像英国、法国、美国和德国的早发型现代化，虽然都是由工业化和资本主义民主化推动的，但是发展进程是不同的、是有差别的。比如英国和美国，虽然都是沿着工业化和资本主义民主化的顺序同时展开的，但具体表现却很不相同；再如法国和德国，法国是先有资本主义民主化后有工业化，而德国则是先有工业化后有资本主义民主化等。

Second, Western-style modernization models are diverse. In the development process of modernization in Western capitalist countries, due to differences in geographical location, natural conditions, civilizational traditions, cultural customs, economic conditions, political systems, and even national character, their modernization models also exhibit diversified characteristics. There is no and cannot be a unified model; instead, different models have emerged. It can be seen that European and American capitalist countries also have differences and diversity in their modernization paths, systems, theories, and cultures. The differences in subjective and objective conditions determine the diversity of things. The capitalist modernization models of Western Europe, Northern Europe, and North America each have their differences; the modernization models of Britain, France, the United States, Germany, Japan, etc., also have their own characteristics, with various models that are not entirely identical. For example, capitalist modernization includes multiple models such as the Anglo-Saxon model, the Rhine model, the Nordic model, and the East Asian model. In addition, there are the Southern European model (or Mediterranean model, including Italy, Spain, Greece, etc.), the Indian model, and the Latin American model, all of which, based on learning from the above models, possess certain self-exploratory characteristics and different features, and also have a certain international influence.

其次，西方式现代化模式具有多样性。在西方资本主义国家的现代化发展进程中，由于地理位置、自然条件、文明传统、文化习俗、经济条件、政治制度乃至民族性格等的不同，其现代化模式也呈现出多样性特征，并不存在也不可能存在一个统一模式，而是出现了不同模式。可以看到，欧美资本主义国家在现代化道路、制度、理论和文化上同样存在着差异性和多样性。主客观条件的差异性决定了事物存在的多样性，西欧、北欧、北美的资本主义现代化模式各有差异，英国、法国、美国、德国、日本等的现代化模式也各有特点，其模式多种多样，并不完全相同。例如，资本主义现代化存在着盎格鲁-撒克逊模式、莱茵模式、北欧模式、东亚模式等多种模式。此外，还有南欧模式（或称地中海模式，包括意大利、西班牙、希腊等）、印度模式和拉美模式等，都是在学习以上模式的基础上，具有某些自我探索的性质和不同特点，在国际上也有一定影响力。

2. The Diversity of World Modernization Development Models

2.世界现代化发展模式的多样性

In the process of conducting empirical and comparative studies on the modernization development of different countries or regions, many scholars have also discovered that the catch-up process of different developing countries or regions in world modernization development is even less universally uniform; rather, it exhibits diversity and complexity. The modernization development models of different regions across the world’s continents show enormous differences. American historian Cyril E. Black took the political modernization of nation-states as the object and basic unit of study. Through in-depth analysis of the initial conditions, process factors, and comparative studies of modernization development in different countries and regions, he formed a holistic understanding and general view of the development process of human social modernization. Black’s research proves that the development models of modernization in countries around the world are diverse, and world modernization development manifests in various diversified forms.

在对不同国家或地区的现代化发展进行实证和比较研究的过程中，许多学者同样发现，不同发展中国家或地区在追赶世界现代化发展的进程中更不是普遍一律的，而是具有多样性和复杂性，世界各大洲不同地域的现代化发展模式表现出巨大差异性。美国历史学家西里尔·E.布莱克曾把民族国家的政治现代化作为研究对象和研究的基本单元，通过深入剖析不同国家和地区现代化发展的起始条件、过程因素及其比较研究,形成了关于人类社会现代化发展进程的一种整体性认识和一般性看法。布莱克的研究证明，世界各国现代化的发展模式具有多样性，世界现代化发展表现为不同的多样化形态。

In his 1966 book *The Dynamics of Modernization*, Black divided the historical process of human social modernization into four stages: the challenge of modernity, the consolidation of modernizing leadership, economic and social transformation, and social integration: “(1) The challenge of modernity—the emergence of modern ideas and institutions, and of advocates of modernization, which initially confronts society within the framework of traditional knowledge; (2) The consolidation of modernizing leadership—the transfer of power from traditional to modern leaders, a process in which acute revolutionary struggle often lasts for several generations; (3) Economic and social transformation—economic growth and social change reach a point where society shifts from a way of life centered on agriculture and rural areas to one centered on industry and cities; (4) Social integration—the reorganization of the entire basic structure of society resulting from economic and social transformation.” In his 1979 book *Comparative Modernization*, Black revised this view of the stages of modernization: “This book adopts the simplest periodization of the modernization process, namely: the preparatory period, the transformation period, the period of advanced modernization, and the period of international integration.”

布莱克在1966年出版的《现代化的动力》一书中把人类社会现代化发展的历史进程分为现代性的挑战、现代化领导的稳固、经济与社会的转型、社会整合等四个阶段：“（1）现代性的挑战——现代观念和制度、现代化拥护者的出现，这一切使社会在传统知识范围内遇到了最初的对抗；（2）现代化领导的稳固——权力从传统领袖向现代领袖转移，在这一过程中，尖锐的革命斗争通常可达数代人之久；（3）经济和社会的转型——经济增长和社会变迁达到这一程度，社会从以农业和农村为主的生活方式转向以工业和城市为主的生活方式；（4）社会整合——指经济和社会转型导致了整个社会基本结构的重组。”在1979年出版的《比较现代化》一书中，布莱克对这一关于现代化发展阶段的看法又作了修改：“本书对现代化的进程作了最为简单的分期，即：准备时期、转变时期、高级现代化时期与国际一体化时期。”

In conducting comparative studies of modernization, Black made a specific distinction between types of modernization: one type is the process of internal social transformation within a country or region; the other type is the position occupied by advanced societies within the society of a country or region. The first type manifests as follows: in the process of modernization, the society of a country or region should be regarded as an independent entity whose traditional social structure gradually adapts to the functions of modern society. The second type manifests as follows: in the process of modernization, under the influence of many external forces, the gradual adaptation of the traditional structure of a society in a country or region to the functional characteristics of modern society should also be regarded as a social entity. From these two perspectives, the modernization development of each country or region is different, because it is impossible for any two countries or regions to have identical natural resources, modernization conditions, traditional institutions, human structures, and cultural customs, nor can they simultaneously develop to the same stage and form the same leadership groups, development policies, and development paths.

在进行现代化的比较研究时，布莱克对现代化社会作了具体区分，一种类型的现代化是一个国家或地区的社会内部转变过程，另一种类型的现代化是看先进社会在一个国家或地区的社会中所占的地位。第一种类型表现为，在现代化的过程中，一个国家或地区的社会，应被视为传统社会结构逐渐适应现代社会功能的独立体；第二种类型表现为，在现代化的过程中，在受到许多外力的影响下，一个国家或地区的社会，其传统结构逐渐适应现代社会的功能特征也应被看作一个社会体。从这两个方面看，每个国家或地区的现代化发展都是不一样的，因为不可能有哪两个国家或地区的自然资源、现代化条件、传统制度、人力结构、文化习俗是相同的，也不可能同时发展到相同阶段，形成相同的领导集团、发展政策和发展路径。

Through comparative research, Black found that the modernization of different countries or regions has both commonalities and particularities. He listed five basic criteria for comparative modernization research: first, the temporal criterion, that is, whether the transfer of power between old and new regimes in a country or region occurs earlier or later than in other countries or regions; second, the source of the challenge, that is, whether the challenge of modernization for a country or region comes mainly from within the country or from outside; third, changes in territory and population, that is, whether the modernization development of a country or region maintains its original territory and indigenous population, or completely changes the original map and involves a large immigrant population; fourth, national sovereignty, that is, whether the modernization development of a country or region is based on an independent state or on a colonial state; fifth, institutional characteristics, that is, whether a country or region, when embarking on modernization, possesses progressive institutions adaptable to the functional characteristics of modern society, or backward institutions incapable of such adaptation, and whether it must import foreign institutions as substitutes.

通过比较研究，布莱克发现不同国家或地区的现代化既具有共同性又具有特殊性。他列举了比较现代化研究的5个基本依据：一是时间依据，也就是一个国家或地区的新旧政权转移，其时间是早于还是晚于其他国家或地区；二是挑战来源，也就是一个国家或地区的现代化挑战，主要是来自国家内部还是来自国家外部；三是国土和人口变化，也就是一个国家或地区的现代化发展是仍然保持原有国土面积与原住人口，还是彻底改变了原有版图与有大量移民人口；四是国家主权，也就是一个国家或地区的现代化发展是建立在一个独立国家基础上还是在一个殖民地国家基础上；五是制度特征，也就是一个国家或地区在踏入现代化发展时，是否具有可适应现代社会功能特征的进步制度，还是具有不能适应现代社会功能特征的落后制度，是否必须输入外国制度来替代。

Based on these five basic criteria for comparative modernization research, Black conducted an analytical comparative study of the political modernization of over 170 countries or regions worldwide. According to differences in the degree and mode of modernization development, he divided these countries or regions into seven types. The first type is the Anglo-French model, represented by Britain and France. In this type, the challenge of modernization comes mainly from within the country, and major economic, political, and social changes occur over a relatively long period. In the process of modernization development, political revolution occurs first, followed by the industrial revolution and changes in social structure; traditional institutions and social structures gradually adapt and acquire the functions of modern social structures. The second type is the derivative state model, represented by the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which are derivatives of the Anglo-French model. This type of modernization confronts modernity with a relatively amorphous social form, discards the traditional political institutions of the mother country, and has a social structure that is not rigid and is relatively easy to change. The third type is the European model, represented by European countries other than Britain and France. In this type of modernization, politically, the consolidation of modern political leadership is deeply influenced by the example of other countries, and territorial changes are also relatively large. The fourth type is the Latin American model, represented by the 22 independent countries of Latin America. This type of modernization is characterized by deep influence from the traditional political institutions and colonial legacy of European mother countries; therefore, it is also called the branch model of other European countries in the New World. The formation of the modernizing leadership group occurs relatively late, and the population is mainly composed of immigrants. The fifth type is the autonomous model, represented by Russia, Japan, China, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Thailand. This type of modernization is characterized by the existence of a central government with a long history, capable of resisting external political oppression and direct rule. Although influenced by advanced countries, modernization construction is essentially carried out autonomously, without direct external interference. The challenge of modernization, although basically external, does not involve foreign rule or the creation of a new state. External factors form a challenge to the internal society, and knowledge about modernization is actively obtained from outside, such as Peter the Great’s reforms in Russia, the Meiji Restoration in Japan, the Hundred Days’ Reform in late Qing China, and the reforms of Mehmed II in Turkey. These political reforms were mainly aimed at strengthening the ruling power of the traditional government to resist external oppression and pressure, rather than primarily reforming traditional institutions. At the same time, these countries possess a sense of identity, centripetal force, and cohesion regarding traditional culture, thereby maintaining unity in the face of external pressure, but the process of advancing modernization is slow and tortuous. The sixth and seventh types are the dependency models: the former is the Asian and North African dependency model, represented by 34 independent countries and 29 dependent territories in Asia and North Africa; the latter is the Southern African and Oceanian dependency model, represented by 31 independent regions and 20 dependent territories in Southern Africa and Oceania. Black’s comparative research provides an in-depth and concrete explanation of the diversity and complexity of the world modernization movement.

根据现代化比较研究的五个基本依据，布莱克对世界170多个国家或地区的政治现代化进行了分析比较研究，依据现代化发展程度与方式的不同，将这些国家或地区划分为七种类型。第一种类型是英法模式，以英国与法国为代表。这种类型的现代化挑战主要来自国家内部，经济、政治与社会的重大变革经历了较长时期。在现代化发展过程中，先是进行政治革命，然后进行工业革命和社会结构变革，传统制度和社会结构逐渐适应并具有现代社会结构的功能。第二种类型是衍生国模式，以美国、加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰为代表，是英法模式的衍生物。这种类型的现代化，以一种非固定形态的社会姿态面对现代化，摒弃母国传统政治制度，社会结构没有凝固和较易改变。第三种类型是欧洲模式，以除英法以外的欧洲其他国家为代表。这种类型的现代化，在政治上，现代政治领导权的巩固深受他国范例的影响，领土变动也较大。第四种类型是拉美国家模式，以拉美22个独立国家为代表。这种类型的现代化，表现为受欧洲母国的传统政治制度与殖民影响较深，因此，又被称为其他欧洲国家在新世界的支系模式，现代化的领导集团形成较晚，人口主要为外来人口。第五种类型是自主模式，以俄国、日本、中国、伊朗、土耳其、阿富汗、埃塞俄比亚和泰国等为代表。这种类型的现代化，表现为有一个历史悠久的中央政府，都能抵抗外来的政治压迫和直接统治，虽然受到先进国家的影响，但基本上是自主地进行现代化建设，没有受到外力直接干涉。现代化的挑战，虽然基本上是来自外部的，但不存在外来统治和创立新国家的问题。外因形成对社会内部的挑战，主动从外部获得有关现代化的知识，如俄国彼得大帝改革、日本明治维新、中国晚清戊戌变法、土耳其穆罕默德二世改革等。这些政治改革主要是加强传统政府的统治力量，以抵御外来压迫与压力，而不是主要改革传统制度。同时，这些国家具有传统文化的认同感、向心力、凝聚力，从而在外来压力面前保持团结，但推进现代化的进程是缓慢的、曲折的。第六种和第七种类型是附属地模式，前者是以亚洲和北非等34个独立国家和29个附属地为代表的亚洲和北非附属地模式，后者是以南部非洲和大洋洲的31个独立地区和20个附属地为代表的南部非洲和大洋洲附属地模式。布莱克的这一比较研究，深入具体地说明了世界现代化运动的多样性和复杂性。

The development process of Chinese-path modernization also fully embodies the diversity and complexity of modernization development. Although China’s modernization began with the Westernization Movement, the Hundred Days’ Reform, and the Xinhai Revolution, and subsequently went through the long process of the New Democratic Revolution, the socialist revolution and construction, and reform and opening up, it is neither a copy of the Western, European, or American modernization models, nor an imitation or transplantation of the Soviet-style socialist modernization or the modernization model of any other country or region. Rather, it is a path of Chinese-path modernization pioneered by the Communist Party of China by integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture. Chinese-path modernization not only shares the common features of modernization in countries around the world but also unifies the basic requirements of modernization with the essence of socialism, and unifies learning from and drawing on the general theory of modernization with exploring and innovating the theoretical system of modernization, thereby achieving a creative transcendence of Western-style modernization and its theoretical system. The successful creation of Chinese-path modernization once again demonstrates that Western-style modernization is not the only model of world modernization.

中国式现代化的发展进程也充分体现了现代化发展的多样性和复杂性。中国的现代化虽然始发于洋务运动、戊戌变法、辛亥革命，后经新民主主义革命、社会主义革命与建设和改革开放的长期过程，但既不是西方化、欧洲化、美国化现代化模式的照搬照抄，也不是苏联式社会主义现代化或其他哪个国家或地区现代化模式的模仿移植，而是中国共产党把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合而开创出一条中国式现代化道路。中国式现代化既具有世界各国现代化的共同特征，又把现代化的基本要求与社会主义本质相统一，把学习借鉴现代化的一般理论与探索创新现代化的理论体系相统一，从而实现对西方式现代化及其理论体系的创造性超越。中国式现代化的成功开创再次说明，西方式现代化并不是世界现代化的唯一模式。

3. Modernization Does Not Equal “Westernization”

3.现代化不等于“西方化”

Since the European Renaissance in the 14th century, and especially with the religious reformation, the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment, the free-market economy, the industrial revolution and the bourgeois political revolution developed rapidly. The capitalist modernization that began in Western European countries gave rise to modernity and entry into modern society; “modernization” became a progressive concept in the development of human society, spread quickly across the globe, and gained a dominant position worldwide. Clearly, the world modernization movement began in the West because the West had earlier acquired the historical conditions for entering capitalist modernization. However, we cannot therefore equate modernization with “Westernization,” nor regard Western-path modernization as an unassailable a priori logic. It cannot be denied that, before the establishment of the socialist system, Western-path modernization represented a capitalist model of human social modernization, and the characteristics of modern civilization were to a large extent also embodied by capitalist modernization. Yet historical development shows that, after the establishment of the socialist system, modern civilization cannot be simply equated with capitalist civilization; it includes socialist civilization as well. Nor can modernization be simply equated with Westernization, Europeanization or Americanization; it includes socialist modernization. Whether capitalist modernization or socialist modernization, not only are the two systems fundamentally different, but the two types of modernization also differ completely in content and form, manifesting diversity and complexity.

世界现代化运动自14世纪欧洲文艺复兴运动开始之后，尤其是伴随着宗教改革运动、科学革命运动和思想启蒙运动，自由市场经济、工业革命和资产阶级政治革命得到快速发展，从西欧各国开始的资本主义现代化形成现代性，进入现代社会，“现代化”成为人类社会发展的一种进步观念，迅速向全球扩展，并在世界范围内取得优势地位。显然，世界现代化运动之所以从西方肇始，是由于西方更早具备了进入资本主义现代化的历史条件。然而，我们并不能因此就把现代化等同于“西方化”，或者把西方式现代化看作颠扑不破的先验逻辑。不能否认，在社会主义制度建立之前，西方式现代化代表了人类社会现代化的一种资本主义模式，现代文明的特征在很大程度上也是由资本主义现代化来体现的。但是，历史发展表明，在社会主义制度建立之后，现代文明不能简单地等同于资本主义文明，而是包括社会主义文明；现代化也不能简单地等同于西方化、欧洲化和美国化，而是包括社会主义现代化。无论是资本主义的现代化还是社会主义的现代化，不仅两种制度根本不同，而且两种类型的现代化在内涵和形式上也完全不同，表现为多样性、复杂性。

Therefore, the fact that the West entered modernization earliest was determined by the movement of the basic contradictions in Western society, by the level of productive forces and the transformation of relations of production in Western society at that time, and by the development and transformation of the economic base and the superstructure. In the process of achieving modernization, the economic, political, cultural and social models constructed by Western-path modernization—such as the free market, the separation of powers, “universal values” and civil society—are merely one model within the world modernization movement, not a universal model, and still less the only model.

因此，西方之所以最早进入现代化，是由西方社会的基本矛盾运动所决定的，是由当时西方社会的生产力水平和生产关系变革所决定的、经济基础与上层建筑的发展与变革所决定的。在实现现代化的进程中，西方式现代化建构起来的诸如自由市场、三权分立、“普世价值”和市民社会等经济、政治、文化、社会模式，只是世界现代化运动中的一种模式，而不是世界现代化运动的普遍模式，更不是世界现代化运动的唯一模式。

However, in Western modernization theory, the Western-path modernization model is touted as the universal truth and the sole model of the world modernization movement. This is in fact a case of taking the part for the whole, substituting one model for all others. Since the 1950s and 1960s, some Western modernization theories have equated Western-path modernization with world modernization, depicting and interpreting the historical process of the world modernization movement as a process in which developing and underdeveloped countries look up to, learn from, imitate and catch up with Western-path modernization. They oppose any ideas, values, political systems or lifestyles in these countries that differ from Western-path modernization, denouncing them as tradition or traditionality that must be thoroughly discarded, while imposing Western economic models, political systems, cultural values and lifestyles on these countries as “modern” or modernity. They hold that developing and underdeveloped countries can achieve modernization simply by fully importing and copying Western-path modernization’s economic models, political systems, cultural values and lifestyles. Clearly, this demands that developing and underdeveloped countries cut their feet to fit the shoes.

然而，在西方现代化理论那里，把西方式现代化模式标榜为世界现代化运动的普遍真理和唯一模式，实际上是以偏概全，以一种模式代替其他模式。20世纪五六十年代以来，一些西方现代化理论把西方式现代化等同于世界现代化，把世界现代化运动的历史进程描绘与解释为发展中国家和欠发达国家向西方式现代化看齐、学习、模仿与追赶的过程，把这些国家凡是与西方式现代化不同的思想观念、价值理念、政治制度、生活方式等与现代化对立起来，斥之为必须彻底抛弃的传统或传统性，而把西方的经济模式、政治制度、文化价值观和生活方式等作为“现代”或现代性强加给这些国家，认为发展中国家和欠发达国家只要全盘引进、照搬照抄西方式现代化的经济模式、政治制度、文化价值观和生活方式等，就能实现现代化。显然，这是要求发展中国家和欠发达国家削足适履。

For a long time, some Western modernization theories have touted Western-path modernization as representing the direction of the world modernization movement and as a model for developing and underdeveloped countries to catch up with modernization. Many developing and underdeveloped countries have also pinned their hopes on copying and transplanting the Western-path modernization model to achieve their own modernization. Practice has proven that this is fundamentally unworkable; the vast majority of countries that have done so have encountered various difficulties and fallen into various traps, and have failed to achieve modernization as desired. Clearly, for a country or region to achieve modernization, it cannot escape the constraints of subjective and objective factors such as its own natural conditions, historical traditions, cultural foundations, specific national conditions and external environment. History shows that in the more than twenty years since the beginning of the 21st century, even Western-path modernization itself has faced various difficulties and challenges: sluggish economic growth in the capitalist world, long-term troubles from the international financial crisis. At the same time, because terrorism, totalitarianism, populism and trade protectionism threaten the world, regional wars continue, traditional global governance systems have failed, and the global problems and challenges confronting all of humanity have become more prominent, the modernization development of countries around the world also faces severe new challenges, both domestic and international.

长期以来，一些西方现代化理论标榜西方式现代化代表世界现代化运动的发展方向，是发展中国家和欠发达国家追赶现代化的学习样板。不少发展中国家和欠发达国家也寄望于通过照搬和移植西方式现代化模式，来实现本国的现代化发展。实践证明，这是根本行不通的，绝大多数国家这样做的结果是遭遇了各种各样的困难和陷入了各种陷阱，都未能如愿实现现代化。显然，一个国家或地区要实现现代化，不能脱离自身的自然条件、历史传统、文化根基、具体国情和外部环境等主客观因素的制约。历史表明，在进入21世纪后的20多年时间里，即使西方式现代化自身也面临各种各样的困境和挑战，资本主义世界经济增长乏力，国际金融危机长期困扰。同时，由于恐怖主义、极权主义、民粹主义、贸易保护主义威胁世界，世界局部战争不断，传统全球治理体系失灵，人类共同面临的全球性问题与挑战凸显等，世界各国的现代化发展也面临新的国际国内的严峻挑战。

In stark contrast, since the beginning of the 21st century, the process of Chinese-path modernization has achieved remarkable accomplishments. Its economic aggregate rose from 6th place in the world in 2000, accounting for only about 3.5% of the world economy, to 2nd place in the world in 2010, accounting for 9.1% of the world economy. Thereafter, China’s economy developed and grew steadily, stabilizing in 2nd place globally. By 2019, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the economic aggregate reached 14.28 trillion US dollars, more than double that of 2010, accounting for 16.3% of the world economy. By 2021, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, China had completed the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects, historically eliminated absolute poverty, and embarked on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country. Chinese-path modernization has also become a hot topic in the world today. Chinese-path modernization is breaking various difficulties in the process of modernization development and shattering the myth of “modernization = Westernization” through a new plan, a new path and a new model completely different from Western-path modernization.

与此形成鲜明对照的是，进入21世纪以来，中国式现代化发展进程取得举世瞩目的成就，经济总量从2000年的世界第6位、仅占世界经济总量的35%左右，上升至2010年的世界第2位、占世界经济总量的9.1%。此后，中国经济稳定发展和增长，稳定在世界第2位，至2019年新中国成立70周年经济总量达14.28万亿美元，比2010年翻了1倍多，占到世界经济总量的16.3%。至2021年中国共产党成立100周年，全面建成小康社会，历史性地消除了绝对贫困，开启全面建设社会主义现代化国家的新征程，中国式现代化也开始成为当今世界的热门话题。中国式现代化正以一种完全不同于西方式现代化的新方案、新途径和新模式，破解现代化发展进程中的种种难题，打破“现代化=西方化”的神话。

V. The Evaluation of World Modernization Development Is Complex

五、世界现代化发展评价具有复杂性

In the sense of historical materialism, modernization signifies profound changes in the economic, political, cultural, social and ecological development of humanity. Such profound changes are progressive and directional, not chaotic or aimless. The world modernization movement conforms to the general laws of the development of human society, signifying that human society is developing in a better direction, embodied in the process of moving from tradition to modernity, from ignorance to civilization, from backwardness to advancement. Therefore, modernization is both a factual existence and a value orientation, embodying the organic unity of facticity and value. That is to say, modernization is not a neutral term, still less a derogatory or negative term as some Western anti-modernization theorists claim; rather, it is a commendatory and affirmative term symbolizing the progress of human social development. Specifically, as a worldwide movement embodying the development and progress of human social civilization, the criteria for evaluating modernization have four major characteristics: first, modernization symbolizes the progressive trend and world tide of development; second, modernization embodies progressive development goals and purposes; third, modernization is both a development process and a structural element; fourth, modernization is comprehensive development and progress in all aspects—economic, political, cultural, social and ecological. Therefore, the evaluation of the world modernization movement is in fact also full of complexity.

在唯物史观的意义上，现代化意味着人类经济、政治、文化、社会、生态发展的深刻变化。这种深刻变化，是具有进步意义和方向性的，而不是杂乱无章、漫无目的的。世界现代化运动符合人类社会发展的一般规律，意味着人类社会向着更加美好的方向发展，体现为从传统到现代、从愚昧到文明、从落后到先进的发展过程。因此，现代化既是一种事实存在又是一种价值取向，体现着事实性与价值性的有机统一。也就是说，现代化并不是一个中性词，更不是像西方一些反现代化理论家所说的那样，是一个贬义词、否定词，而是一个象征着人类社会发展进步的褒义词、肯定词。具体而言，现代化作为体现人类社会文明发展进步的世界性运动，其评价标准具有四大特征：一是现代化象征着发展的进步趋势和世界潮流，二是现代化体现着进步的发展目标和发展目的，三是现代化既是一种发展进程又是一种要素结构，四是现代化是经济政治文化社会生态等各方面的全面发展进步。因此，实际上对世界现代化运动的评价，也是充满着复杂性的。

1. The Complexity of Social Productive Forces and World Historical Development

1.社会生产力和世界历史发展的复杂性

Viewed from the economic perspective of the industrial revolution and the scientific-technological revolution, the modernization movement, after emerging in Britain, rapidly swept across the world, becoming a powerful force for the economic development of countries or regions. On the one hand, the capitalist modernization movement created enormous social productive forces. Marx and Engels pointed out: “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?” On the other hand, the rapid development of the productive forces of capitalist society was full of contradictions, possessing both enormous creativity and enormous destructiveness, bringing both civilization and ugliness, development and disaster to the whole world in the process of promoting world historical development. Marx and Engels pointed out: “The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.”

从经济角度的工业革命、科技革命看，现代化运动从英国出现以后迅速席卷世界，成为一个国家或地区经济发展的强大力量。一方面，资本主义现代化运动创造了巨大的社会生产力。马克思恩格斯指出：“资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大。自然力的征服，机器的采用，化学在工业和农业中的应用，轮船的行驶，铁路的通行，电报的使用，整个整个大陆的开垦，河川的通航，仿佛用法术从地下呼唤出来的大量人口——过去哪一个世纪料想到在社会劳动里蕴藏有这样的生产力呢？”另一方面，资本主义社会生产力的快速发展却充满着矛盾性，既有巨大的创造性又有巨大的破坏性，在促进世界历史发展进程中把文明和丑恶、发展和灾难同时带给了全世界。马克思恩格斯指出：“由于一切生产工具的迅速改进，由于交通的极其便利，把一切民族甚至最野蛮的民族都卷到文明中来了。它的商品的低廉价格，是它用来摧毁一切万里长城、征服野蛮人最顽强的仇外心理的重炮。它迫使一切民族——如果它们不想灭亡的话——采用资产阶级的生产方式；它迫使它们在自己那里推行所谓的文明，即变成资产者。一句话，它按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界。”

With the establishment of the capitalist mode of production, Western-style modernization became a powerful force and tide, rapidly promoted across the world, spreading from Western Europe to Europe, North America, Oceania, and East Asia. Especially since the Second World War, developing countries and less developed countries have also hoped to join the ranks of modernized countries in the world. Socialist modernization, represented by the Soviet Union, also created remarkable economic achievements. The territorial area, population size, economic scale, and scientific-technological development of the socialist camp were almost on a par with the Western-style modernization of the capitalist camp; the entire world was already within the current of the modernization movement. Since 1840, when its doors were forced open by Western capitalist powers, China was also compelled to become involved in the world tide and historical current of modernization. Today, in the development of the world, although a profound historical reflection on the modernization movement and its modernity is underway, achieving modernization remains the urgently pursued economic and social development goal of various countries and nations in the world, especially developing and less developed countries.

随着资本主义生产方式的建立，西方式现代化成为一股强劲力量和浪潮，在全世界迅速推动起来，自西欧扩展到欧洲、北美洲、大洋洲和东亚等。尤其是第二次世界大战以来，发展中国家和欠发达国家也希望跻身于世界现代化国家的行列。以苏联为代表的社会主义现代化，也曾创造举世瞩目的经济成就，社会主义阵营的地域面积、人口数量、经济规模、科技发展，几乎与资本主义阵营的西方式现代化旗鼓相当，整个世界都已经处在现代化运动的潮流之中。自1840年被西方资本主义列强打开国门之后，中国也被迫卷入现代化的世界潮流和历史洪流之中。如今世界的发展，尽管对现代化运动及其现代性正进行深刻的历史反思，但是，实现现代化仍然是世界上各个国家和民族尤其是发展中国家和欠发达国家迫切追求的经济社会发展目标。

2. The Complexity of “Revolution” and “Reform” as Catalysts for Modernization

2.“革命”和“改革”成为现代化的催化剂具有复杂性

Looking at the development process of the world modernization movement, it can be seen that “revolution” and “reform” have become important links for most countries in the world to embark on the path of modernization, serving as the midwives or catalysts for new social forms to break through old social forms and come into the world, especially as the main pathways for new political forms to replace old political forms.

纵观世界现代化运动的发展历程，可以看到，“革命”和“改革”成为世界上大多数国家走上现代化道路的重要环节，成为新的社会形态冲破旧的社会形态来到世间的催产婆或催化剂，尤其是成为新的政治形态替代旧的政治形态的主要途径。

Viewed from the development process of the world modernization movement, first, the British bourgeois revolution and the Industrial Revolution opened the序幕 of Western-style modernization, seizing the initiative in the world modernization movement and once making Britain the “empire on which the sun never sets”; the bourgeois revolution was an important link in Britain’s embarkation on Western-style modernization. Next came the French bourgeois revolution, where old feudal concepts were gradually replaced by entirely new capitalist ideas such as natural rights, the social contract, and the separation of powers. Then came the American War of Independence and the American Civil War, after which the United States embarked on the path to becoming a powerful capitalist modernized country. Following these were the reforms of Peter the Great in Russia and the Meiji Restoration in Japan. It can be seen that countries of Western-style modernization almost all underwent “revolution,” “reform,” and “revision.”

从世界现代化运动的发展历程看，首先是英国资产阶级革命、工业革命拉开西方式现代化的序幕，占据世界现代化运动的先机，一度成为世界上的“日不落帝国”，资产阶级革命是英国走上西方式现代化的重要一环。紧接着是法国资产阶级革命，封建主义旧的观念逐渐被全新的天赋人权、社会契约、三权分立等资本主义思想观念所取代。然后是美国独立战争和南北内战，美国从此走上资本主义现代化强国道路。跟随其后的是俄国彼得大帝改革和日本的明治维新。可以看到，西方式现代化的国家几乎历经“革命”“改革”和“改良”。

Entering the 20th century, the world began to witness socialist revolutions. First, the October Revolution broke out in Russia, opening up a path of modernization fundamentally opposed to the capitalist system in a weak link of capitalist development — the path of socialist modernization development. After the Second World War, a large number of colonial and semi-colonial countries or regions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America achieved independent sovereignty through national democratic revolutions and began to embark on the path of development towards modernization. In this process, it can be seen that “revolution,” “reform,” or “revision” also became important links. As far as China is concerned, from 1840 onwards, it began a difficult journey of exploring modernization development, which can be described as an alternating and complex process of “revision,” “reform,” and “revolution,” traversing a long path from “revision” — the Westernization Movement [14]14 The Westernization Movement (洋务运动, c. 1861–1895) was a series of self-strengthening reforms in the late Qing dynasty aimed at adopting Western military and industrial technology while preserving Confucian values. to “reform” — the Hundred Days’ Reform [15]15 The Hundred Days’ Reform (戊戌变法, 1898) was a failed 103-day period of political, educational, and institutional reforms in the late Qing dynasty, led by reformers such as Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, which was crushed by a conservative coup., and then to “revolution” — the Xinhai Revolution [16]16 The Xinhai Revolution (辛亥革命, 1911–1912) overthrew the Qing dynasty and ended over two thousand years of imperial rule in China, establishing the Republic of China. and the New Democratic Revolution [17]17 The New Democratic Revolution (新民主主义革命, 1919–1949) was the Chinese communist-led revolution that, according to Mao Zedong’s theory, first completed the bourgeois-democratic tasks of anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism before transitioning to socialism, culminating in the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949., and then to “reform” — reform and opening up. “Revolution,” “reform,” and “revision” have become important links and key pathways for the Chinese nation to embark on the road of modernization development.

进入20世纪以来，世界开始发生社会主义革命，首先是俄国爆发十月革命，在资本主义发展的薄弱环节开辟出一条与资本主义制度根本对立的现代化道路——社会主义现代化发展道路。第二次世界大战后，一大批亚非拉的殖民地半殖民地国家或地区通过民族民主革命，实现独立主权，开始走上通向现代化的发展道路。在这一过程中可以看到，或“革命”或“改革”或“改良”，也成为其中的重要环节。就我国而言，从1840年以后开始走上探寻现代化发展的艰辛历程，可谓历经“改良”“改革”与“革命”的交替复杂过程，走过了一条从“改良”——洋务运动到“改革”——戊戌变法，再到“革命”——辛亥革命和新民主主义革命，又到“改革”——改革开放的漫长之路。“革命”“改革”和“改良”成为中华民族走上现代化发展之路的重要环节和关键途径。

That is to say, in the world modernization movement, whether capitalist modernization or socialist modernization, “revolution,” “reform,” and “revision” have all become the main channels, necessary conditions, and key links for many countries or regions to move towards modernization. The difference lies only in the specific national conditions, historical backgrounds, external environments, and tasks of the era being different, so the problems addressed by “revolution,” “reform,” and “revision,” their duration, specific methods, and intensity, etc., differ. Obviously, “revolution,” “reform,” and “revision” are social movements that are both constructive and destructive. To build a new world means simultaneously breaking an old world, and their complexity is self-evident.

也就是说，世界现代化运动无论是资本主义现代化还是社会主义现代化，“革命”“改革”和“改良”都成为许多国家或地区走向现代化的主要通道、必要条件和关键环节。所不同的只是，由于各自的具体国情、历史背景、外部环境和时代任务不同，“革命”“改革”和“改良”所针对的问题、时间的长短、具体的方式、激烈的程度等不同而已。显然，“革命”“改革”和“改良”是一种兼具建设性与破坏性的社会运动，要建设一个新世界，意味着同时也要打破一个旧世界，其复杂性是不言而喻的。

3. The Complexity of Capitalist Modernization Development Inviting Multidimensional Critique

3.资本主义现代化发展的复杂性招致的多维批判

Viewed from the history of thought in modern and contemporary human society, it can be seen that since the emergence of the capitalist mode of production and capitalist modernization, they have been subjected to continuous critique and even fierce denunciation.

从人类社会近现代以来的思想发展史可以看到，自从资本主义生产方式和资本主义现代化出现以来，就遭到了不断的批判乃至激烈抨击。

First, the fierce and direct holistic critique by utopian socialism. Utopian socialist thinkers, emerging almost simultaneously with the capitalist system, first subjected capitalist society to a fierce and direct holistic critique. Utopian socialism held that the economic freedom dominated by capitalist private property produced a large number of phenomena of enslavement, oppression, and exploitation, forming unequal relations of capitalist property possession. The capitalist economy that allowed free trade and free competition was an “alienated” economy, which not only reduced the majority of people in society to poverty but also made the capitalist political freedom determined by this economic base hypocritical and deceptive political freedom.

一是空想社会主义激烈且直接的整体性批判。几乎与资本主义制度同时产生的空想社会主义思想家，首先对资本主义社会进行了激烈而且直接的整体性批判。空想社会主义认为，由资本主义私有制主导的经济自由产生了大量奴役、压迫和剥削现象，形成了不平等的资本主义财产占有关系。允许自由贸易与自由竞争的资本主义经济，是一种“异化”经济，不仅使社会中的大多数人沦为穷人，而且以此为经济基础所决定的资本主义政治自由，也是虚伪的、具有欺骗性的政治自由。

Second, the dialectical critique of Marxist historical materialism. Marxist historical materialism and the theory of scientific socialism dialectically and scientifically critiqued the capitalist mode of production and its modern civilization. Using the basic principle of historical materialism that the fundamental contradiction of society drives social development, Marx and Engels held that the capitalist relations of production in which the bourgeoisie operates have a dual character. They fully affirmed the historical status and historical role of the capitalist mode of production in the development process of human social history, while also thoroughly critiquing the human disasters brought about by the capitalist mode of production: in the relations of production that generated enormous wealth, they also produced enormous poverty for the vast majority; in the relations of production that developed productive forces, they also produced a powerful force of political oppression; in the process of free buying and selling, free trade, and free competition, they also created the vast proletariat’s complete lack of freedom except for “personal freedom”; while creating modern civilization, they were also filled with bloodshed, violence, and barbarism, forming a paradox of wealth, a paradox of freedom, and a paradox of civilization. Therefore, “the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”

二是马克思主义唯物史观的辩证批判。马克思主义唯物史观和科学社会主义理论，辩证地科学地批判了资本主义生产方式及其现代文明。马克思恩格斯运用唯物史观关于社会基本矛盾推动社会发展的基本原理，认为资产阶级借以在其中活动的资本主义生产关系具有两重性，既充分肯定资本主义生产方式在人类社会历史发展进程中的历史地位和历史作用，又彻底批判了资本主义生产方式所带来的人类灾难，在产生巨大财富的生产关系中又产生了绝大多数人的巨大贫困，在发展生产力的生产关系中又产生了政治压迫的强大力量，在进行自由买卖、自由贸易、自由竞争的过程中又造成了广大无产阶级除了“人身自由”之外的毫无自由，在创造现代文明的同时又充满了血腥、暴力和野蛮，形成了财富的悖论、自由的悖论和文明的悖论。因此，“资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的”。

Third, the sharp critique from Western Marxism. Western Marxism is a “Left” trend of thought that took shape in the course of the development of Marxism. After being criticized by the Communist International, it still claimed to be “Marxism” and gave rise to numerous schools of thought of various kinds; it is also regarded as a trend of thought in modern Western philosophy. One theme of Western Marxism is a thorough and total critique of capitalist society and its modernity; another theme is the critique, reflection, and revision of Marxism. Clearly, both themes are linked to the critique of capitalist society and its modernity. The critique of capitalist society and its modernity is also a critique of the Western-path modernization.

三是西方马克思主义的强烈批判。西方马克思主义是马克思主义发展过程中形成的一种“左”倾思潮，在受到共产国际批判后仍然自诩为“马克思主义”，有形形色色的众多流派，也被认为是现代西方哲学的一种思潮。西方马克思主义的一个主题是对资本主义社会及其现代性的全面彻底批判，另一个主题是对马克思主义进行批判、反思和修正。显然，这两个主题都是与批判资本主义社会及其现代性联系在一起的。对资本主义社会及其现代性的批判，也就是对西方式现代化的批判。

Fourth, Western capitalism’s self-critique. In the course of the modernization of Western capitalist countries, after the first and second industrializations, a reversal of industrialization and urbanization occurred. Industrialization and urbanization are the economic and social foundations of classical modernization theory; the “reversal” of these two aspects means that early Western-path modernization has been questioned and negated, and modernization has entered a new development track of de-industrialization and de-urbanization. At the same time, “modern diseases” have also emerged in the process of modernization, such as the destruction of natural resources, the widening gap between rich and poor, regional development imbalances, the obsolescence of work skills, the weakening of family functions, the frequent occurrence of ethical problems, the prominence of ecological issues, and the deterioration of the global climate. Therefore, Western society itself has also seen questioning and critique of classical modernization theory, questioning and revision of “modernization = Westernization,” and even the emergence of anti-modernization theory, reflexive modernization theory, re-modernization theory, and self-reflexive modernization theory.

四是西方资本主义对自身的批判。在西方资本主义国家现代化的发展进程中，在第一次工业化、第二次工业化之后，出现了工业化和城市化的逆转现象。工业化和城市化是经典现代化理论的经济社会基础，这两个方面的“逆转”意味着早期西方式现代化遭到质疑和否定，现代化进入一个非工业化、非城市化的新发展轨道。同时，在现代化进程中还出现了“现代病”，诸如自然资源的破坏、贫富差距的扩大、地域发展的失衡、工作技能的老化、家庭功能的弱化、伦理问题的频发、生态问题的凸显、世界气候的恶化等。因此，西方社会自身也出现了对经典现代化理论的质疑和批判，出现了对“现代化=西方化”的质疑与修正，甚至出现了反现代化理论、反思性现代化理论、再现代化理论和自反性现代化理论等。

Fifth, the questioning and critique from developing and underdeveloped countries. Some classical Western modernization theories advocate that developing and underdeveloped countries should achieve their own modernization by learning from the Western-path modernization’s economic, political, cultural, and social models—such as the free market, the separation of powers, “universal values,” and civil society—and by investing heavily in and developing education. Some developing and underdeveloped countries also placed their hopes on following the Western-path modernization development path to achieve their own modernization. However, things often turned out contrary to their wishes, and they even faced various traps and difficulties. In the process of reflection, some developing and underdeveloped countries formed a dependency theory that questions and criticizes Western-path modernization and classical Western modernization theory. Dependency theory, from the perspective of the interrelationship between economy and politics, demonstrates the phenomenon of advanced central countries and backward peripheral countries that exists in Western-path modernization and its theories; its essence is a relationship of oppression and the oppressed, exploitation and the exploited. The developed countries of Western-path modernization occupy the central position in the world system, while developing and underdeveloped countries occupy the peripheral position. The central countries often exploit the peripheral countries economically, politically, culturally, and in other ways, so that the peripheral countries cannot develop and even experience political corruption, social turmoil, and regime collapse.

五是发展中国家和欠发达国家的质疑与批判。西方一些经典现代化理论，主张发展中国家和欠发达国家通过学习西方式现代化的自由市场、三权分立、“普世价值”和市民社会等经济、政治、文化、社会模式，大力投资和发展教育，从而实现本国的现代化。一些发展中国家和欠发达国家，也寄希望于沿着西方式现代化发展道路实现本国的现代化。然而，不仅往往事与愿违，甚至面临各种陷阱和困境。一些发展中国家和欠发达国家在反思的过程中，形成了一种质疑和批判西方式现代化和西方经典现代化理论的依附理论。依附理论从经济与政治的相互关系上论证了西方式现代化及其理论存在的先进的中心国与落后的边缘国的现象，其实质是一种压迫与被压迫、剥削与被剥削的关系。西方式现代化的发达国家处于世界体系的中心地位，发展中国家和欠发达国家处于世界体系的边缘地位，中心国家往往从经济、政治、文化等各方面盘剥边缘国家，边缘国家从而得不到发展，甚至出现政治腐败、社会动荡、政权垮台等。

Sixth, Chinese-path modernization has no precedent in the history of the world modernization movement.

六、中国式现代化在世界现代化运动史上没有先例

Without comparison, there is no discernment. Only through comparison can we distinguish the good from the bad, progress from backwardness, and understand gaps and advantages. Only through comparison can we avoid talking to ourselves. So-called comparison can be profound philosophical reflection, empirical comparative analysis, or mutual learning that complements strengths and weaknesses. Placing Chinese-path modernization within the development process of world modernization and the complexity of the world modernization movement for analysis and comparison reveals the universal connections between Chinese-path modernization and the world modernization movement. At the same time, it reveals even more clearly that Chinese-path modernization has distinct Chinese characteristics and represents a high degree of unity between the world character of the world modernization movement and the national character of the Chinese nation.

没有比较，就没有鉴别。只有比较，才能分清优劣，才能分清进步与落后，才能了解差距和优势。也只有比较，才能避免自说自话。所谓比较，既可以是哲学层面的深刻思辨，也可以是实证层面的对比分析，还可以是互鉴层面的优劣相补。把中国式现代化放到世界现代化的发展进程中和世界现代化运动的复杂性中去分析去比较，就会发现中国式现代化与世界现代化运动的普遍联系。同时，更会发现中国式现代化具有鲜明的中国特色，是世界现代化运动的世界性与中华民族的民族性的高度统一。

There is no doubt that, determined by China’s basic national conditions—such as its historical conditions, civilizational traditions, population size, and geographical location—Chinese-path modernization is an indispensable and important component of world modernization development. However, it is equally beyond doubt that Chinese-path modernization differs from the modernization of other countries in the world; it is a “Chinese-path” modernization. Chinese-path modernization not only shares the common features of world modernization but also possesses the Chinese characteristics of “Chinese-path” modernization; it is a dialectical and organic unity of world modernization and Chinese-path modernization. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC points out: “Chinese-path modernization is socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China. It contains elements that are common to the modernizations of all countries, but it is more characterized by features that are unique to the Chinese context.” Chinese-path modernization is a path of socialist modernization created by adhering to “taking our own road”; it has no precedent in the history of the world modernization movement.

毫无疑问，由中国的历史条件、文明传统、人口规模和地理位置等基本国情所决定，中国式现代化是世界现代化发展不可或缺的重要组成部分。但是，同样毫无疑问，中国式现代化又与世界其他国家的现代化不同，是“中国式”的现代化。中国式现代化既具有世界现代化的共同特征，更具有“中国式”现代化的中国特色，是世界现代化与中国式现代化的辩证、有机统一。党的二十大报告指出：“中国式现代化，是中国共产党领导的社会主义现代化，既有各国现代化的共同特征，更有基于自己国情的中国特色。”中国式现代化是坚持“走自己的路”而开创出来的一条社会主义现代化发展之路，在世界现代化运动史上没有先例。

First, it should be noted that Chinese-path modernization emerged and developed within the world “grand history”—the historical process of the world modernization movement—and therefore shares the common features of modernization in all countries. Scientifically understanding the relationship between China and the world is an indispensable inter-subjective relationship for thinking about and studying Chinese-path modernization. Since human society entered world history, China has been China in the world; China cannot and cannot possibly leave the world, and the world cannot and cannot possibly be without China. The modernization movement that has occurred in the world and its historical process inevitably affect China. Against the historical backdrop of the world modernization movement, China inevitably produces and forms responses, adaptations, and reactions to this world influence. Viewing China against the background of world historical development, and treating Chinese-path modernization as an important part of the historical process of world modernization, is an inevitable requirement of the world modernization movement. Thinking about and studying the influence and role of the world background, world historical conditions, and the development trends of the era of the modernization movement on Chinese-path modernization from the perspective of world “grand history,” as well as thinking about and studying Chinese-path modernization’s responses, adaptations, and reactions to the world modernization movement, is conducive to a scientific understanding of the origins of Chinese-path modernization, the common features of modernization in all countries that it possesses, and its position and future development direction in the historical process of world modernization.

首先，应该看到，中国式现代化是在世界“大历史”——世界现代化运动的历史进程中发生发展形成的，具有世界各国现代化的共同特征。科学认识中国与世界的关系，是思考和研究中国式现代化不可或缺的互为主体间性的关系。人类社会进入世界历史以来，中国就是世界中的中国，中国离不开也不可能离开世界，世界不能也不可能没有中国。世界发生的现代化运动及其历史进程必然影响中国，在世界现代化运动的历史背景下，中国也必然产生和形成对这种世界影响的反应、适应与应对。将中国放在世界历史发展的背景中来看待，将中国式现代化作为世界现代化历史进程中的一个重要组成部分来看待，是世界现代化运动的必然要求。从世界“大历史”来思考和研究现代化运动的世界背景、世界历史条件和时代发展趋势对中国式现代化的影响和作用，以及思考和研究中国式现代化对世界现代化运动的反应、适应与应对，有利于科学认识中国式现代化发生发展的缘起、所具有的世界各国现代化的共同特征，以及在世界现代化历史进程中的地位和未来发展方向。

Second, it should be noted that Chinese-path modernization is a modernization developed through the inheritance of the Chinese nation’s more than 5,000 years of long and splendid civilization history, and it possesses Chinese characteristics based on its own national conditions. The long-standing, profound, and extensive Chinese civilization has accumulated an extremely deep historical heritage and cultural foundation. It possesses philosophical thoughts, humanistic spirit, value concepts, and moral norms that are inclusive and passed down from generation to generation. It embodies the worldview, outlook on life, values, morality, and aesthetics passed down through generations of the Chinese nation, providing rich nourishment for the Chinese nation’s endless vitality, development, and growth. For example, it has always emphasized benevolence, valuing the people, keeping good faith, upholding justice, promoting harmony, and seeking common ground; another example is the gene of “peace.” The Chinese nation has always emphasized the “kingly way” and opposed the “hegemonic way.” It has never relied on militarism or external expansion to form a central position in the “world,” but rather on the cultural appeal and attractiveness of cultivating trust and good neighborliness, maintaining close and friendly relations, and helping each other in times of need. Xi Jinping points out: “Every country and nation has its own historical traditions, cultural accumulation, and basic national conditions, so their development paths must have their own characteristics… Solving China’s problems can only be done by seeking a path and methods suitable for ourselves on Chinese soil. For thousands of years, the Chinese nation has walked a path of civilizational development different from other countries and nations. It is no accident that we have opened up the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics; it is determined by our country’s historical heritage and cultural traditions.” Chinese civilization provides an inexhaustible spiritual driving force for the Communist Party of China to lead the Chinese people in creating a Chinese-path modernization path suitable for China’s national conditions. It is precisely in the great practice of the “Two Integrations”[n] that Chinese-path modernization has been created.

其次，应该看到，中国式现代化是在对中华民族5000多年悠久文明历史的传承中发展起来的现代化，具有基于自己国情的中国特色。源远流长、博大精深的中华文明，积淀着无比深厚历史底蕴和文化根基，有着兼容并蓄、薪火相传的哲学思想、人文精神、价值理念和道德规范，体现着中华民族世代相传的世界观、人生观、价值观、道德观和审美观等，为中华民族生生不息、发展壮大提供了丰厚滋养。例如，历来注重讲仁爱、重民本、守诚信、崇正义、尚和合、求大同；再如“和平”基因，中华民族历来注重“王道”而反对“霸道”，历来都不靠穷兵黩武和对外扩张来形成“天下”中心地位，而是靠讲信修睦、睦邻友好、唇齿相依、守望相助的文化感召力吸引力。习近平指出：“每个国家和民族的历史传统、文化积淀、基本国情不同，其发展道路必然有着自己的特色……解决中国的问题只能在中国大地上探寻适合自己的道路和办法。数千年来，中华民族走着一条不同于其他国家和民族的文明发展道路。我们开辟了中国特色社会主义道路不是偶然的，是我国历史传承和文化传统决定的。”中华文明为中国共产党带领中国人民开创适合中国国情的中国式现代化道路提供了不竭的精神动力，中国式现代化也正是在“两个结合”的伟大实践中开创出来的。

Finally, it should be recognized that the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization can only form a theoretical system that is both national and global if it analyses, discriminates, learns from and absorbs the existing modernization theories in the world. Modernization is a worldwide development trend since the beginning of modern world history; it is not a development trajectory unique to any one country or region. In the process of the development of human society’s modernization movement, various modernization paths, modernization models and modernization theories have already taken shape. In the process of human understanding of the development of the world modernization movement, the concepts, categories and theoretical logic of existing modernization theories have provided a rich theoretical reserve for the construction and development of modernization theory in human society. However, Chinese-path modernization possesses both the worldwide universality of the world modernization movement and the national particularity of Chinese-path modernization’s own development. The theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization is not a theoretical system of modernization cooked up behind closed doors, nor is it a theoretical system of modernization that talks only to itself; it should be a theoretical system of modernization that advances and develops within the broad horizon of the world modernization movement, an expanded and innovative understanding built on the basis of recognizing the different existing modernization theories in the world, and a new discovery, new understanding and new generalization established on the new development foundation of the world modernization movement. It is both a special theoretical system concerning Chinese-path modernization and a general theoretical system concerning the complexity of the world modernization movement. Only in this way can the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization deeply explore and expand the scientific explanation of the meta-questions, theoretical questions and practical questions of Chinese-path modernization, acquire its own distinctive concepts, categories and theoretical logic, and thereby form an international discursive power capable of engaging in dialogue with Western-style modernization theory and even advancing the development of world modernization theory, making new explorations, new creations and new contributions to the world modernization movement and its theory.

最后，应该看到，中国式现代化理论体系对世界上已有现代化理论必须有分析有鉴别、有学习有吸纳，才能形成既具有民族性又具有世界性的现代化理论体系。现代化是进入近代世界历史以来的世界性发展潮流，不是哪一个国家或地区独有的发展轨迹。在人类社会现代化发展的进程中，已经形成了各种各样的现代化道路、现代化模式和现代化理论。在人类认识世界现代化运动发展的过程中，已有现代化理论的概念、范畴和理论逻辑，为人类社会的现代化理论构建与发展提供了丰富的理论储备。然而，中国式现代化既有世界现代化运动的世界性普遍性，又有中国式现代化自身发展的民族性特殊性。中国式现代化理论体系，不是一种关起门搞出来的现代化理论体系，不是一种自说自话的现代化理论体系，应该是在世界现代化运动的广阔视野中发展进步的现代化理论体系，是在对世界上已有不同的现代化理论认识基础上的扩展性认识和创新性认识，是建立在世界现代化运动新的发展基础上的新发现、新认识和新概括，既是一种关于中国式现代化的特殊性理论体系，又是一种关于世界现代化运动复杂性的一般性理论体系。只有这样，中国式现代化理论体系才能深入探索和拓展科学阐释中国式现代化的元问题、理论问题和实际问题，才能获得自身的标识性概念、范畴和理论逻辑，从而形成可以与西方式现代化理论对话乃至推进世界现代化理论发展的国际话语权，为世界现代化运动及其理论作出新探索新创造新贡献。

Conclusion

结 语

An important feature of the world modernization movement is that the economic development systems of modernization are all globalized and worldwide, while the political organization systems of modernization are nationalized and regionalized. In other words, so-called modernization takes the world as its stage but is based on countries or regions. Over the past several centuries, under the political organization of different countries or regions across the globe, the world modernization movement has been drawn into the process of the world modernization movement and developed on the basis of different economic bases, political structures, cultural traditions, religious beliefs, social compositions and constantly changing world backgrounds. In the past few decades, China has successfully written the previous volume of Chinese-path modernization, composing a brilliant chapter in the history of human modernization development. On the basis of completing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China has clearly set the goal of basically realizing socialist modernization by 2035 and building China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful by the middle of the 21st century. This is the central task of the Party in the New Era and the new journey. To write this next volume of Chinese-path modernization well, we must fully recognize the contradiction and enormous tension between the worldwide, global character of modernization and its national, state character, fully recognize the extreme complexity of the process of modernization development, and be aware that in different future stages of development we may encounter various predictable and unpredictable crises and opportunities. The development of Chinese-path modernization cannot be separated from the world stage, and the prosperity and stability of the world cannot be separated from the comprehensive advancement of Chinese-path modernization. This is both a strategic opportunity for China to move to the center of the world stage under the world background of changes unseen in a century and a huge challenge facing Chinese-path modernization. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC profoundly pointed out: “China’s development has entered a period in which strategic opportunities and risks and challenges coexist, and uncertainties and unpredictable factors have increased. Various ‘black swan’ and ‘gray rhino’ events may occur at any time. We must enhance our awareness of potential dangers, adhere to bottom-line thinking, be prepared for danger in times of safety and take precautions before it is too late, and be ready to withstand major tests of high winds and choppy waters, or even treacherous waves.” We must both be full of confidence in realizing Chinese-path modernization and be prepared for danger in times of safety, ready to make more arduous and more painstaking efforts, always uphold and strengthen the Party’s overall leadership, uphold the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, uphold the people-centered development philosophy, uphold the deepening of reform and opening up, and uphold the promotion of the spirit of struggle. Then Chinese-path modernization will surely win an infinitely bright and beautiful future. (Notes omitted)

世界现代化运动的一个重要特征，就是现代化的经济发展体系都是全球化、世界化的，而现代化的政治组织体系却是国家化、地区化的。换言之，所谓现代化，都是以世界为舞台，以国家或地区为基础的。在过去几个世纪的时间里，世界现代化运动在全球不同国家或地区的政治组织下，以不同的经济基础、政治结构、文化传统、宗教信仰、社会构成和不断变化的世界背景，卷入世界现代化运动的进程中并发展起来。过去几十年，我国已经成功地书写了中国式现代化的上一卷，写下了人类现代化发展史上的辉煌篇章。在全面建成小康社会的基础上，我国已明确提出到2035年基本实现社会主义现代化，到21世纪中叶把我国建成富强民主文明和谐美丽的社会主义现代化强国。这是新时代新征程党的中心任务。我国要书写好中国式现代化的这下一卷，必须充分认识现代化的世界性、全球性与民族性、国家性的矛盾和巨大张力，充分认识现代化发展进程的极其复杂性，在未来的不同发展阶段，可能会遭遇各种能够预料和不能够预料的危机和机遇。中国式现代化的发展离不开世界舞台，世界的繁荣稳定也离不开中国式现代化的全面推进。这是百年变局世界背景下我国走近世界舞台中央的战略机遇，也是中国式现代化面临的巨大挑战。党的二十大报告深刻指出：“我国发展进入战略机遇和风险挑战并存、不确定难预料因素增多的时期，各种‘黑天鹅’、‘灰犀牛’事件随时可能发生。我们必须增强忧患意识，坚持底线思维，做到居安思危、未雨绸缪，准备经受风高浪急甚至惊涛骇浪的重大考验。”我们既要对实现中国式现代化充满信心，又要居安思危，准备付出更为艰巨、更为艰苦的努力，始终坚持和加强党的全面领导，坚持中国特色社会主义道路，坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，坚持深化改革开放，坚持发扬斗争精神，中国式现代化就一定能够赢得无限美好的光明未来。（注释略）

References:

参考文献：

[1]1 This is a quotation from Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, from his speech at the opening ceremony of a seminar on the study and implementation of the spirit of the 19th National Congress of the CPC in January 2018. *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vols. 1–4, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012.

[1]《马克思恩格斯选集》第1—4卷，北京：人民出版社，2012年。

[2]2 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 28: “Bloody Legislation against the Expropriated, from the End of the 15th Century. Forcing Down of Wages by Acts of Parliament.” *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vols. 1–4, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1991.

[2]《毛泽东选集》第1—4卷，北京：人民出版社，1991年。

[3]3 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.” *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, Vols. 1–3, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1994, 1993.

[3]《邓小平文选》第1—3卷，北京：人民出版社，1994年、1993年。

[4]4 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.” *Xi Jinping: The Governance of China*, Vols. 1–4, Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2018, 2017, 2020, 2022.

[4]《习近平谈治国理政》第1—4卷，北京：外文出版社，2018年、2017年、2020年、2022年。

[5]5 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 32: “Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation.” Luo Rongqu, *A New Treatise on Modernization: The Modernization Process of the World and China*, Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2009.

[5]罗荣渠：《现代化新论——世界与中国的现代化进程》，北京：商务印书馆，2009年。

[6]6 These figures refer to indemnities imposed on China by foreign powers through unequal treaties, including the Treaty of Nanking (1842, 21 million silver dollars), the Treaty of Tientsin (1858, 8 million taels each to Britain and France), the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895, 230 million taels to Japan), and the Boxer Protocol (1901, 450 million taels to eight foreign powers). Dai Mucai, *The Great Way of Reform: Chinese-Path Modernization*, Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2024.

[6]戴木才：《大道维新：中国式现代化》，北京：外文出版社，2024年。

[7]7 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist,” citing Thomas Stamford Raffles, *The History of Java* (1817). Wang Tiezheng, ed., *The Course of World Modernization* (Middle East Volume), Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2012.

[7]王铁铮主编：《世界现代化历程》（中东卷），南京：江苏人民出版社，2012年。

[8]8 This is a quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.” Qian Chengdan, ed., *The Course of World Modernization* (General Volume), Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2010.

[8]钱乘旦主编：《世界现代化历程》（总论卷），南京：江苏人民出版社，2010年。

(The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, Tsinghua University)

（作者系清华大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑